Is the trial court abused its discretion to exclude a taxi driver as a witness?

admonition or instruction. [Citation.] Whether a particular incident is incurably prejudicial is by its nature a speculative matter, and the trial court is vested with considerable discretion in ruling on mistrial motions. [Citation.]' [Citation.]" (People v. Wallace (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1032, 1068.)

On the record before us, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion. As for whether the taxicab driver should have been allowed to testify, it is questionable whether this objection was preserved. Although defendant raised concerns about possible witness contamination before the driver testified and requested that he be excluded as a witness, it does not appear that she requested that his testimony be stricken after he testified. ( 353, subd. (a) [no reversal based on erroneous admission of evidence absent a timely motion to strike]; People v. Frank (1990) 51 Cal.3d 718, 733 [failure to move to strike testimony amounts to waiver of objection].)