to that portion of the charge; however, the prosecutor did not do so as to the statement defendant now challenges. In fact, the State emphasized that the challenged statement was the State’s opinion of what would have been a safe place in the present case by using the language, “the [S]tate submits.” The General Assembly has not provided a definition or guidance to the courts in defining the term, “safe place.” See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-39 (2001). Nor do our pattern jury instructions include such a definition. See N.C. Pattern Jury Instructions for Criminal Cases § 210.20. Further, the cases that have focused on whether or not the release of a victim was in a safe place have been decided by our Courts on a case-by-case approach, relying on the particular facts of each case. See State v (<HOLDING>). In the present case, defendant did
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 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 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 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 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