have been inappropriate, we do not agree that the statement rose to the level of an “extreme impropriety on the part of the prosecutor” that “so infected the trial with unfairness that [it] rendered the conviction fundamentally unfair.” Nicholson, 355 N.C. at 41, 558 S.E.2d at 137 (citations omitted). See also State v. Haselden, 357 N.C. 1, 22, 577 S.E.2d 594, 608 (2003) (“defendant must show that the prosecutor’s argument ‘so inf rmitting the inference that the victim was not released in a safe place where the victim, who was new to the area and disoriented, was released at approximately 5:00 a.m. on a mid-January morning at an intersection a mile from a shopping mall, with no source of protection until after she reached the shopping mall); Pratt, 306 N.C. at 682-83, 295 S.E.2d at 468 (<HOLDING>); Pratt, 152 N.C. App. at 700, 568 S.E.2d at
holding the evidence supported the inference that the victim was not released in a safe place where the victim overpowered the defendants and effected his own escape holding that evidence the defendant knew the victim supported a finding that the murder was committed to avoid arrest holding the evidence established the victim was released in a safe place when the victim was taken to a motel near a major shopping center in the middle of the afternoon was voluntarily dropped off with change to make a phone call and received assistance from hotel employees in the office holding sufficient evidence existed that the victim was not released in a safe place where the victim was left tied to a tree in a damp wooded area fortyfive feet off a dirt road and ninetythree feet down a path holding the evidence supported a finding that the handicapped victim was not in a safe place where the victim was tied and undressed in the wintertime and left in an unfamiliar area