the trial with unfairness as to render the resulting conviction a denial of due process.’ ”) (citations omitted). Therefore, we hold that the trial court did not err in failing to correct, on its own motion, the prosecutor’s challenged statement in her closing argument. This assignment of error is overruled. II. Defendant also assigns as error the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss. Defendant argues the evidence was insufficient to support the charges of first degree kidnapping and larceny of a motor vehicle, even taken in the light most favorable to the State. The trial court did not err in refusing to dismiss either of t s safe or not, have not provided any clear standard to apply, taking a case-by-case approach. See Heatwole, 333 N.C. at 161, 423 S.E.2d at 738 (<HOLDING>); Sutcliff, 322 N.C. at 89, 366 S.E.2d at 479
holding that the trial court did not err by refusing to ask whether prospective jurors would place a greater amount of weight upon the testimony of law enforcement officers over that of the defendants holding corrections officers are not law enforcement officers under  41412 holding that city ordinances ban on assault weapons was vague because the ordinance lacked a scienter requirement and its definitions of assault weapons inter alia unfairly required gun consumers to ascertain the developmental history of particular weapons or monitor the precise types of ammunition available for their weapons recognizing as reasonable an officers inference that a driver could be hiding weapons in his car when his passenger had an outstanding warrant for a weapons violation holding inter alia that sending a victim out into the focal point of law enforcement officers weapons is not a safe place