everybody to guess as opposed to what in fact, did or did not happen. So with respect to those matters, they are suppressed and ... please disregard those comments by the prosecutor." Record at 549-50. Under these circumstances, the trial court would have committed no error in refusing Sutton's request for a mistrial. The third alleged erroneous denial of a motion for mistrial stems from an incident which occurred during the prosecutor's closing arguments. His comments to the jury included an arguably incorrect statement of the law. An objection was interjected immediately. A curative instruction was requested and given. No other remedy was sought. Consequently, the trial court could not have erred by not ordering a mistrial. See Barker v. State (1982), Ind., 440 N.E.2d 664, 669 (<HOLDING>). Finally, Sutton argues that she was entitled
holding that failure to request continuance waives complaint that state withheld exculpatory evidence in violation of brady holding that trial judges admonition of the jury to disregard prosecutors comments on the defendants failure to testify did not cure the error holding that failure to request an admonition waives any error resulting from a failure to admonish the jury holding that failure to raise an issue in an opening brief waives that issue holding that the failure to raise an issue in the opening brief waives the issue