We cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion for mistrial. See Allarid v. People, 162 Colo. 537, 427 P.2d 696 (1967). We have considered the defendant's other ground for mistrial and find it to be without merit.

[7] It is well established that, incident to a custodial arrest, a defendant is subject to a full body search. United States v. Edwards, 415 U.S. 800, 94 S.Ct. 1234, 39 L.Ed.2d 771 (1974); United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 94 S.Ct. 467, 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973); Gustafson v. Florida, 414 U.S. 260, 94 S.Ct. 488, 38 L.Ed.2d 456 (1973); Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969); Allarid v. People, 162 Colo. 537, 427 P.2d 696 (1967). If probable cause supports the arrest, no additional justification is required to search the defendant's person. United States v. Robinson, supra, 414 U.S. at 235, 94 S.Ct. at 477, 38 L.Ed.2d at 441.

Moreover, to mitigate the possibility of prejudice resulting from opening statements not fully supported by evidence at trial, the trial judge submitted Instruction No. 27 to the jury, stating in part, "In determining the facts, you should consider only the evidence given upon trial . . . . The opening statements and arguments of the lawyers are not evidence." Absent a contrary showing, it is presumed that the jury understood the instructions and heeded them. Allarid v. People, 162 Colo. 537, 427 P.2d 696; Rhodus v. People, 160 Colo. 407, 418 P.2d 42; O'Loughlin v. People, 90 Colo. 368, 10 P.2d 543. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

* * *" In the absence of a showing to the contrary, it is presumed that the jury understood the instructions and heeded them. Allarid v. People, 162 Colo. 537, 427 P.2d 696; Rhodus v. People, 160 Colo. 407, 418 P.2d 42; Gonzales v. People, 156 Colo. 252, 398 P.2d 236. [5] Finally, an examination of the entire record reveals that the remark of the district attorney here in question was inconsequential when viewed against the host of evidence, upon which the jury could have based its determination of the appellant's guilt.

That they suggest defendant might have been a user of marijuana — a lesser offense than that with which he was charged — does not render such items inadmissible. Allarid v. People, 162 Colo. 537, 427 P.2d 696. Defendant cites Harris v. United States, 331 U.S. 145, 67 S.Ct. 1098, 91 L.Ed. 1399, as prohibiting admissibility on the basis that, not being the fruits of the crime, they are not the subject of a valid seizure.

Evidence properly admissible for one purpose does not become inadmissible because it would be inadmissible if offered only for another purpose. Cf. Allarid v. People, 162 Colo. 537, 427 P.2d 696. In any case, in his own testimony, the defendant testified as to his previous felony convictions and as to his resent release from Fort Leavenworth Penitentiary. No prejudice could have resulted from the admission of the officer's testimony, Mitsunaga v. People, 54 Colo. 102, 129 P. 241.

Thus, this testimony was admissible to show the circumstances surrounding the arrest. See Allarid v. People, 162 Colo. 537, 427 P.2d 696 (1967). Defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

The prosecutor's first comment was objected to by the defendant, sustained by the trial court, and the jury was instructed to disregard it. This remedy was well within the trial court's discretion, and vitiated any need for a mistrial. See Allarid v. People, 162 Colo. 537, 427 P.2d 696 (1967). Likewise, we find nothing objectionable in the prosecutor's accurate comment that the defendant, as well as the prosecution, had subpoena powers.

In the absence of a showing to the contrary, it is presumed that the jurors understood this instruction and heeded it. People v. Motley, supra; Allarid v. People, 162 Colo. 537, 427 P.2d 696 (1967). Judgment affirmed.

Finally, in his challenge to the admission of testimony that he was arrested, Massey has failed to demonstrate prejudice, see Crim. P. 52(a), since the testimony was limited to the fact that he was arrested and the location of the arrest. Cf. Allarid v. People, 162 Colo. 537, 427 P.2d 696 (1967). Judgment affirmed.