No. 27 in the settled list. [¶ 66.] 6.Whether the trial court erred by allowing defense counsel’s comments in regard to plaintiffs expert during closing argument. [¶ 67.] Veith asserts that defense counsel’s remarks about plaintiffs expert, Dr. Balliro, constituted an irregularity in the proceedings under SDCL 15 — 6—59(a)(1) thereby prejudicing the jury and denying him a fair trial. However, Veith failed to preserve this issue for appeal by not offering proper objection during closing. “The rule is that the objection to argument of counsel must be made at the time of t ding that plaintiffs failure to request a mistrial due to defense counsel’s improper statements during closing argument foreclosed his opportunity to argue it on appeal); State v. Handy, 450 N.W.2d 434, 435 (S.D.1990) (<HOLDING>)); Arbach v. Gruba, 89 S.D. 322, 232 N.W.2d 842
holding that defendant did not preserve his challenge to alleged prosecutorial misconduct where he did not timely object holding defendants failure to object timely waives its right to challenge expert report holding appellant waived his challenge to statute as vague as applied because he did not specifically object at trial holding that defendant must object at trial to preserve as applied challenge for appeal holding that defendants objection to personal jurisdiction was forfeited where defendant did not object before he entered his plea