we conclude that it was fleeting when viewed in the context of the entire closing argument. See Commonwealth v. May, 587 Pa. 184, 898 A.2d 559, 567-68 (2006) (finding no prejudice resulted from testimony that was fleeting when viewed in the context of a trial that consisted of more than one-thousand pages of testimony). The prosecutor’s remark, if prejudicial at all, was not “so severe as to prejudice the jury to the point that it could not render a true and fair verdict.” Id.See also Commonwealth v. Robinson, 583 Pa. 358, 877 A.2d 433, 443-44 (2005) (finding that the appellant was not prejudiced by the prosecutor’s reference to the victim’s religion because the comment was so brief it did not affect the jury’s decision); Commonwealth v. Freeman, 573 Pa. 532, 827 A.2d 385, 414 (2003) (<HOLDING>); Commonwealth v. Rollins, 558 Pa. 532, 738
holding that admission of evidence showing murder victim was pregnant though prejudicial did not render sentencing fundamentally unfair holding that brief nonspecific testimony that prior to her murder the victim was peaceful and nice was so fleeting and general it was not prejudicial holding that the victims prior videotaped testimony from a preliminary hearing was admissible as testimony at trial where the victim was unavailable to testify holding that the admission of expert testimony was prejudicial where the testimony was pervasive holding that statements were admissible because the sixyearold victim was old enough to understand the nature of the medical examination and the reason therefor her statement to the physician and her trial testimony were consistent in all pertinent respects she was examined immediately after the allegations and nearly four years prior to trial and there was no indication that the victim was motivated to be untruthful