Objection. THE COURT: Sustained. PROSECUTOR: So if Detective Briggs would have documented that through an audio conversation with you and him and then also now a transcription, which would be more correct about you hearing a gun being thrown in the river, what you’re saying now or what you said then? MR. SMITH: Objection. DEFENSE COUNSEL: Objection. THE COURT: Sustained. It hasn’t been established what she said then. Defendant James contends that the State’s line of questioning “appears to have been a deliberate tactic to inform the jury through questions what could not be proved through admissible evidence” and “[qjuestions that place inadmissible information before the jury are improper.” We disagree. The prosecutor did not place inadmissible information b S.E.2d 814, 821 (1978) (<HOLDING>). We overrule defendant James’ argument. We
holding mistrial not warranted for improper statement by police officer where court sustained defendants objection and admonished jury to disregard statement and where there was overwhelming evidence of guilt holding that the trial court reversibly erred in denying the appellants motion for mistrial given the appellees testimony that we dont have no ticket for that accident notwithstanding the fact that the trial court instructed the jury to disregard the comment holding that the trial court reversibly erred in denying the appellants motion for mistrial following the appellees negative response to his attorneys question of whether he had been cited for a traffic violation following the parties accident and concluding that the question and answer were highly improper and prejudicial and that the harm was hot cured by the trial courts instruction to the jury holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants motion for mistrial where the trial court sustained defendants objections to a question by the prosecutor containing improper information and instructed the jury to disregard the question holding that trial court did not abuse discretion in denying motion to sever because trial of three defendants would not create confusion