What is the test for denying a motion for a mistrial for a defendant who made a reference to fruit on the witness list?

Bishop contends the court erred in denying his motion for mistrial. We disagree. "Denial of a motion for a mistrial is reviewed for abuse of discretion and should be granted 'only when " 'a party's chances of receiving a fair trial have been irreparably damaged.' " ' [Citations.] The motion should be granted only if the trial court is informed of the prejudice and it judges the prejudice to be insusceptible of being cured by admonition or instruction." (People v. Panah (2005) 35 Cal.4th 395, 444.) " ' "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." ' " (People v. Lucero (2000) 23 Cal.4th 692, 714.)

Here, the fruit comment was brief and the judge admonished the jury more than once. We presume the jury followed the instructions of the court absent any contrary indication. (People v. Gray (2005) 37 Cal.4th 168, 217.) We conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in determining the comment was not incurably prejudicial in the context of the entire trial.