Heatwole, 333 N.C. 156, 161, 423 S.E.2d 735, 738 (1992); State v. Sutcliff, 322 N.C. 85, 89, 366 S.E.2d 476, 479 (1988); State v. Pratt, 306 N.C. 673, 682-83, 295 S.E.2d 462, 468 (1982); State v. Pratt, 152 N.C. App. 694, 700, 568 S.E.2d 276, 280 (2002); State v. White, 127 N.C. App. 565, 573, 492 S.E.2d 48, 53 (1997); State v. Smith, 110 N.C. App. 119, 137, 429 S.E.2d 425, 434, aff'd per curiam, 335 N.C. 162, 435 S.E.2d 770 (1993). The trial court therefore did not have a clearly defined standard with which to compare the prosecutor’s statement. While the challenged statement ma (stating that there was evidence before the trial court that the victims were not left in a safe place when they were left bound and gagged in the woods at night); White, 127 N.C. App. at 573, 492 S.E.2d at 53 (<HOLDING>); Smith, 110 N.C. App. at 137, 429 S.E.2d at
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 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 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 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 the evidence sufficient to permit the jury to infer the victim escaped from the defendant at a convenience store as opposed to being released in a safe place