correct definition of mitigating circumstances was given two times that the prosecutor made the statement defendant argues was erroneous. Viewed in its entirety, the prosecutor’s argument did not misrepresent mitigating circumstances to the jury. We conclude that in light of the earlier definitions of mitigating circumstances given by the prosecutor, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing these additional remarks to be made. Furthermore, the trial court correctly instructed the jury as to the meaning of mitigating circumstances after the prosecutor had finished his closing argument. Assuming arguendo that the prosecutor’s statements were erroneous, the error was cured by the trial court’s proper instructions. See State v. Anderson, 322 N.C. at 38, 366 S.E.2d at 469 (<HOLDING>); see also State v. Gladden, 315 N.C. 398, 426,
holding that potential prejudice can be cured by an appropriate iimiting instruction holding that any prejudice resulting from misstatements of law made by the prosecutor during closing was cured by the trial courts proper instruction on the applicable law holding thatany error made by the state in its election of offenses was cured during the prosecutors closing argument emphasis added holding that the probative value of contested evidence far outweighed any danger of unfair prejudice where any potential unfair prejudice was cured by a limiting jury instruction holding that any misstatements of law during closing argument are presumed cured by final instruction