THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.� IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

South Carolina Department of Transportation, Respondent,

v.

James Grayson Rose

And

Bank of America, NC, f/k/a Nations Bank NA, Mortgagee, Other Condemnee,

Of whom James Grayson Rose is  Appellant.

Appeal From Lexington County
James R. Barber, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-219
Heard April 23, 2009 - Filed May 26, 2009

AFFIRMED

William P. Walker, of Lexington, and W. Ralph Garris, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Clifford O. Koon, Jr., Robert L. Brown, and Paul D. de Holczer, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:� In this condemnation action, James Grayson Rose appeals the denial of a motion for a new trial, arguing the South Carolina Department of Transportation's closing argument was improper and prejudicial because it appealed to the jury's emotions by insinuating the jury, being comprised of taxpayers, would be paying for the verdict.� Rose also contends the trial court abused its discretion in admitting testimony of possible alterations to the original condemnation plan and abused its discretion in refusing to allow Rose to introduce a computer animation of the subject property and highway expansion project.� �We affirm the trial court's denial of a new trial pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.  As to whether the Department's closing argument was improper, given counsel did not request a clarification of the trial court's ruling, "Let's move forward:" I'On, L.L.C. v. Town of Mt. Pleasant, 338 S.C. 406, 422, 526 S.E.2d 716, 724 (2000) (providing the losing party must raise the issue to the trial court and obtain a ruling on that issue for it to be preserved for appellate review); Brown v. Stewart, 348 S.C. 33, 52, 557 S.E.2d 676, 686 (Ct. App. 2001) (holding appellant failed to preserve the issue of an improper closing argument, where, after the court sustained appellant's objection, appellant did not request a curative instruction or move to strike).

2.  As to whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting testimony of alterations to the condemnation plan: Hanahan v. Simpson, 326 S.C. 140, 155, 485 S.E.2d 903, 911 (1997) (providing where the appellate argument differs from the argument for the trial objection, the issue is not preserved); Brown, 348 S.C. at 52, 557 S.E.2d at 686 (stating after an appellant's objection is sustained, to preserve the issue for review, the appellant must request a curative instruction or move to strike).

3.  As to whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to permit the introduction of a computer animation: Clark v. Cantrell, 339 S.C. 369, 387, 529 S.E.2d 528, 538 (2000) (holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding a computer animation where it was not an accurate representation of the evidence).

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., PIEPER, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.