THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals
The State, Respondent,
Darrell Goss, Appellant.
Appeal From Charleston County
J. C. "Buddy" Nicholson, Jr., Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-214
Submitted May 1, 2011 – Filed May 17, 2011
Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Julie M. Thames, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett Anne Wilson, of Charleston, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Darrell Goss appeals his convictions for kidnapping, assault and battery with intent to kill, and armed robbery, arguing the trial court erred in the following: (1) overruling Goss's objection to the State's closing argument and (2) refusing Goss's request to impeach the victim with the victim's pending charge of counterfeiting goods. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. As to whether the trial court erred in overruling Goss's objection to the State's closing argument, we note preservation was questionable but affirm on the merits: State v. Patterson, 324 S.C. 5, 17, 482 S.E.2d 760, 766 (1997) "[A] trial [court] is vested with broad discretion in dealing with the range of propriety of closing argument, and ordinarily his rulings on such matters will not be disturbed."); id. ("[Appellate courts] must review the argument in the context of the entire record."); id. ("The appellant has the burden of showing that any alleged error in argument deprived him of a fair trial."); id. ("The relevant question is whether the [State's] comments so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.").
2. As to whether the trial court erred in refusing Goss's request to impeach the victim with the victim's pending charge of counterfeiting goods: Fields v. J. Haynes Waters Builders, Inc., 376 S.C. 545, 557, 658 S.E.2d 80, 86 (2008) ("[T]o warrant reversal based on the admission or exclusion of evidence, the appealing party must show both the error of the ruling and prejudice."); Morris v. Tidewater Land & Timber, Inc., 388 S.C. 317, 331, 696 S.E.2d 599, 606 (Ct. App. 2010) (holding a trial court's error in excluding certain testimony was harmless because the parties involved suffered no prejudice as a result of the exclusion of the testimony since the testimony did not touch upon the critical issue in the case).
SHORT, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.
 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.