With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". February 14, 2000, threat was the only prior threat the State wanted to introduce at trial, Thus, Alvies' claim that the State purposefully sought to violate the court's order when it specifically referred Muscar to dates in April 2000, lacks merit. In addition, once Alvies moved for mistrial, the trial court, acting within its discretion, determined that a jury admonishment was appropriate and adequate. Again, a timely and accurate admonishment is presumed to cure any error in the admission of evidence. James v. State, 613 N.E.2d 15, 22 (Ind.1998). And even where a witness violates a motion in li-mine, a trial court may determine that a mistrial is not warranted and, instead, admonish the jury to disregard the improper testimony. See Underwood v. State, 644 N.E.2d 108, 111 (Ind.1994) (<HOLDING>). Finally, Alvies cannot demonstrate that the

A: holding admonishment not mistrial appropriate where police officer made statement in violation of ruling on motion in limine
B: holding that a party failed to preserve error by not pursuing a ruling at trial where the courts motion in limine ruling invited the party to attempt to admit the evidence during trial
C: holding that trial courts have discretion to decide whether litigation conduct violates a ruling on a motion in limine
D: holding that for error to be preserved on appeal with regard to admission of evidence in violation of a ruling on a motion in limine that the evidence is inadmissible an objection should be made at the time the evidence is offered
A.