773 N.E.2d 814, 817 (Ind.2002). We afford substantial deference to the trial court's decision because it is in the best position to gauge the cireumstances and the probable impact on the jury. Schlomer v. State, 580 N.E.2d 950, 955 (Ind.1991). This inquiry depends upon an analysis of the probable persuasive effect that any misconduct had on the jury's decision, and whether the alleged misconduct was repeated such that it appears that the prosecutor engaged in a deliberate attempt to improperly prejudice the defendant. Watkins v. State, 766 N.E.2d 18, 26 (Ind.Ct.App.2002). We observe that Adcock did not request an admonishment or move for a mistrial following the prosecutor's comments and questions. Thus, the issue is waived. See Peterson v. State, 699 N.E.2d 701, 704 (Ind.Ct.App.1998) (<HOLDING>). However, in an effort to avoid waiver, Adcock
holding that a failure to file an appeal is within the scope of the waiver because the failure does not undermine the validity of the plea or waiver holding that the failure to request an admonishment or move for a mistrial following alleged prosecutorial misconduct results in waiver holding that failure to develop a legal argument supporting a claim results in waiver of the claim holding that the governments failure to argue harmless error results in a waiver of the argument holding failure to object in timely fashion at trial results in waiver of issue for appeal