Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): incident. The Court of Criminal Appeals, in determining that no substantial right of the Def WL 1870426, at *6 (Tenn.Crim.App. May 3, 2013), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Oct. 16, 2013) (“More[o]ver, any error that may have occurred was cured by the prosecutor’s electing the oral sex in closing argument and the trial court’s recalling the jury and issuing the supplemental instruction.” (emphasis added)); State v. Busby, No. M2004-00925-CCA-R3-CD, 2005 WL 711904, at *6 (Tenn.Crim.App. Mar. 29, 2005), perm. app. denied (Aug. 25, 2008) (concluding that “the prosecutor provided such an effective substitute during his closing argument in this case” (emphasis added)); State v. Dearry, No. 03C01-9612-CC-00462, 1998 WL 47946, at *13 (Tenn. CrimApp. Feb. 6, 1998), perm. app. denied (Jan. 19, 1999) (<HOLDING>). Still other decisions from the Court of 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the prosecutors closing argument effectively served as an election of the proof upon which the state wished to proceed (B) holding that the defendants objection was untimely when he waited until the end of the prosecutors closing argument to raise it (C) holding that prosecutors allegedly improper closing arguments regarding burden of proof defendants failure to testify and other allegations did not case serious doubt upon the correctness of the jury verdict or the fairness of the trial (D) recognizing that a lawyers comments during closing argument may explain away the alleged prejudicial effect of the opposing parties closing argument comments (E) holding thatany error made by the state in its election of offenses was cured during the prosecutors closing argument emphasis added
Output (English): holding that prosecutors allegedly improper closing arguments regarding burden of proof defendants failure to testify and other allegations did not case serious doubt upon the correctness of the jury verdict or the fairness of the trial