is given wide latitude to argue the facts and all reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom.” State v. Britt, 291 N.C. 528, 537, 231 S.E.2d 644, 651 (1977). N.C.G.S. § 15A-1230(a) provides in part that “[a]n attorney may, ... on the basis of his analysis of the evidence, argue any position or conclusion with respect to a matter in issue.” N.C.G.S. § 84-14 allows counsel to argue the facts and law of the case. In this case defendant was attempting to set forth the testimony of Iris Bolin in order to illustrate how that testimony contradicted and thus impeached Bivens’ testimony. The testimony had been submitted for this very reason, and defendant should have been permitted to continue with his argument. See State v. Bondurant, 309 N.C. 674, 688, 309 S.E.2d 170, 179 (1983) (<HOLDING>); State v. Wall, 304 N.C. 609, 618, 286 S.E.2d
holding that questioning expert witness about specific allegations of misconduct was improper impeachment holding before the advent of the federal rules of evidence that the use of a tax return for the purpose of impeachment was proper holding that plaintiffs failure to object to the improper comments of defendant during closing arguments resulted in waiver of plaintiffs right to argue the issue on appeal because the trial court was not given an opportunity to rule on the issue holding that it is proper to refer to evidence of prior acts of misconduct in the closing arguments on the issue of credibility but it is improper to argue about misdeeds for any purpose other than impeachment because the acts were submitted for impeachment purposes only holding an affidavit containing impeachment evidence is insufficient to support the granting of a new trial