Smith appeals from his conviction of the malice murder of Jeremiah Dempsey. 1 On appeal he contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction, and that the prosecutor violated his right to a fair trial during opening statements. We affirm.

1. Smith contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his murder conviction. We disagree. Several eyewitnesses to the crime testified that Smith approached the victim outside a poolroom, told the victim that he (Smith) had told the victim that he was going to get him, and shot the victim first in the chest and then in the back of the head. The eyewitnesses testified that Smith and the victim did not argue before the shooting. We conclude the evidence is sufficient to satisfy Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

2. During opening statements defense counsel objected when the prosecutor said that the grand jury had listened to evidence presented only by the state and had determined that Smith committed the crime of malice murder. The court sustained the objection and instructed the jury "to disregard the comments as to what the grand jury found. The grand jury found only probable cause to proceed." Defense counsel did not make a motion for a mistrial or request any further curative instructions. Smith now contends that the prosecutor violated his right to a fair trial, and that he is thus entitled to a new trial. However, we conclude that Smith waived his right to appellate review of this issue by failing to make a motion for a mistrial or to renew his objection after the court gave curative instructions. Perkins v. State, 260 Ga. 292, 295 (6) (392 SE2d 872) (1990).