or instructions, necessitates a mistrial. However, it is the well established rule in Mississippi that where a trial judge sustains an objection to testimony interposed by the defense in a criminal case and instructs the jury to disregard it, the remedial acts of the court are usually deemed sufficient to remove any prejudicial effect from the minds of jurors. Id. at 620 (citations omitted). ¶ 43. There was no abuse of discretion in denying the motion for mistrial. The record does not support, nor indicate how this emotional outburst prejudiced Snow to a degree that a mistrial was warranted. Even under the high standard necessitated by the death penalty Snow has failed to show how this outburst prejudiced this proceeding. See Drane v. State, 271 Ga. 849, 523 S.E.2d 301, 305 (1999)(<HOLDING>); Lowe v. State, 267 Ga. 410, 478 S.E.2d 762
holding that trial court commits reversible error in giving allentype charge during penalty phase of capital trial holding trial courts curative instructions adequately prevented error from arising due to spectators emotional outburst during states closing argument in guiltinnocence phase of capital murder prosecution recognizing that use of curative or limiting instructions is within the district courts discretion holding that the trial judges misconduct at trial did not prejudice the defendant in light of the courts curative instructions holding defendant not entitled to mistrial after emotional outburst during states closing argument where the court gave curative instructions to disregard incident as irrelevant to case