Appellant was convicted of soliciting for the purpose of prostitution, S. C. Code Ann. § 16-15-90(3) (1976). She was sentenced-to imprisonment for one year. We affirm.
After the State presented its case, appellant’s counsel asked the trial judge whether appellant’s prior prostitution convictions were admissible to impeach her if she took the stand. The trial judge ruled that the convictions could be *385 used for impeachment purposes. Appellant elected not to testify.
Appellant argues the trial judge’s ruling was erroneous because prostitution is not a crime which can be used for impeachment of a witness.
In
Luce v. United
States, _U. S. _,
We agree with the reasoning of the Luce decision and refuse to engage in speculation in reviewing claims of improper impeachment. We therefore hold that when the trial judge chooses to make a preliminary ruling on the admissibility of prior convictions to impeach a defendant and the defendant does not testify at trial, the claim of improper impeachment is not preserved for review.
Because appellant failed to preserve for review the question of improper impeachment, this Court will not consider that exception. The other issues raised by appellant’s exceptions are without merit and are not affirmed under Rule 23 of the Rules of Practice of this Court.
Affirmed.
