With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 381, 422 (2011). ■Turning to the prosecutor’s statements at issue in the instant case, we find that Appellant is not entitled to relief. First, with respect to the prosecutor’s use of the word “execution,’-’ the trial court sustained counsel’s objection and instructed the jury to disregard the term. As the jury is presumed to follow the court’s instructions, Appellant cannot demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the prosecutor’s comments in this regard. See Commonwealth v. Stokes, 576 Pa. 299, 839 A.2d 226, 230 (2003). In any event, we have consistently found that a prosecutor’s usé of the word “execution” is not prejudicial where, as here, it accurately describes the manner in which the murder was committed. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Freeman, 573 Pa. 532, 827 A.2d 385, 409 (2003) (<HOLDING>). Second, as to the prosecutor’s use of the

A: holding that prosecutors characterization of murders as executions was neither inaccurate nor particularly prejudicial where the appellant unprovoked shot his victims in the head and face
B: holding that the jury would not have rendered a different verdict had mitigating evidence been offered because the murders were calculated and coldblooded and the victims suffered severe mental anguish both before and during the murders
C: holding that when the defendant believed his sister and girlfriend were cheating him out of money shot his sister in the head and then drove to his girlfriends house shot her in the head and proceeded to shoot her two children aged 13 and 22 in the head erroneous seconddegree depraved mind murder instructions given on the shooting of the two children required reversal because the defendant had presented substantial evidence of his own diminished capacity at the time of the murders
D: holding that the presence of four uniformed state troopers in the front row of the gallery was neither inherently nor actually prejudicial to the defendant
A.