With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". N.W.2d 500, 509 (Minn.2005). We review improper prosecutorial statements under a harmless-error standard. Id. Mogler asserts that the county attorney committed prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument by saying that a police officer is always in a position of authority. We first note that Mogler did not object to the statements that he now contests. Although Mogler made a pretrial motion to preclude the state from arguing that a police officer is always in a position of authority, and the court denied it, he did not renew his objection during the closing argument to provide the court an opportunity to cure any erroneous statements. When a party has failed to object, we may review the claim depending on the gravity of the error. See State v. Powers, 654 N.W.2d 667, 678 (Minn.2003) (<HOLDING>). We will not grant a new trial if the

A: holding that defendant forfeits right to have issue considered on appeal when he fails to object to misconduct at trial
B: holding that although a defendant filed a motion in limine on an evidentiary issue a failure to object to the evidence at trial waives the issue for appeal
C: holding that a defendant who fails to object to trial error forfeits his right to appellate review unless he can establish fundamental error
D: holding that the defendant waived the issue on appeal when he failed to contemporaneously object to the admission of such evidence at trial
A.