tendency to prejudice the minds of the jury against the defendant, are grounds for reversal.” Clark v. State, 209 Miss. 586, 594, 48 So.2d 127, 130 (1950). We are of the opinion that McRoy is incorrect in his position that an “indelible impression was created at the start of his trial, and lasted throughout that, if an individual is charged by a grand jury, that person must be guilty.” While we continue to hold the opinion that trial court should use the utmost caution in addressing the jury, including brevity and neutrality, we find that the trial judge in the case sub judice committed no reversible error, but simply correctly articulated the function of the Grand Jury. Beyersdoffer v. State, 520 So.2d 1364, 1366 (Miss.1988). See also Brown v. State, 690 So.2d 276, 297 (Miss.1996) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 11. We find that no prejudice was suffered
holding that any error in the prosecutors misstatement of the gjrand jjurys function was cured when the judge in effect granted the objection and allowed the attorney to correctly articulate the grand jurys function holding the resolution of questions regarding credibility and the weight given to testimony is a function of the family court judge who heard the testimony holding that trial courts failure to sustain objection to prosecutors misstatement of parole law to appellants detriment was harmful error and noting that jury assessed maximum penalty allowed holding a stay appealable because the state suit was likely to continue beyond the expiration of the federal grand jurys term with the practical effect of a dismissal of the proceedings holding trial courts error in overruling objection to prosecutors misstatement of law of intoxication that differed from definition in charge was harmless when there was evidence supporting the jurys verdict and it was presumed the jury followed the instructions in the charge