court gives the instructions on the law, they will disregard such comments and be guided only by the Court’s instructions. (N.T. 12/31/74, p. 39). The prosecutor then proceeded to make the second allegedly prejudicial remark, at which time defense counsel objected and was sustained by the Court. Defense counsel sought a side bar conference which was granted and a motion for mistrial was requested and denied. The decision whether a mistrial should be granted as a result of allegedly improper prosecutorial comments during closing argument is within the discretion of the trial court. Commonwealth v. Perkins, 473 Pa. 116, 373 A.2d 1076 (1977) (plurality opinion); Commonwealth v. Stoltzfus, 462 Pa. 43, 337 A.2d 873 (1975); cf. Commonwealth v. Cronin, 464 Pa. 138, 143, 346 A.2d 59, 62 (1975) (<HOLDING>). ... But even where the language of the
recognizing that prosecutors must have reasonable latitude to fashion closing arguments and thus can argue reasonable inferences based on the evidence including that one of the two sides is lying recognizing defense counsel must have wide latitude in making tactical decisions recognizing that a district attorney must have reasonable latitude in fairly presenting a case to the jury and that the trial judge must have reasonable discretion in deciding whether the bounds of propriety have been exceeded holding that a party must at least have a subjective belief that litigation was a real possibility and that belief must have been objectively reasonable recognizing that trial courts have great latitude and considerable discretion to determine necessary and proper jury instructions