State v. Lindsay
179 S.E.2d 364
N.C.
1971
Check Treatment
*294 HIGGINS, Justice.

The defendant by Assignment of Error. No. 3 contends the trial court committed error by denying his motion for a directed verdict of not guilty interposed ‍​​​​​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‍at the close of the State’s case. The evidence was direct, complete and made out a strong case of armed robbery as defined by G.S. 14-87. State v. Miller, 268 N.C. 532, 151 S.E. 2d 47; State v. Carter, 265 N.C. 626, 144 S.E. 2d 826; State v. Stephens, 262 N.C. 45, 136 S.E. 2d 209. The defendant’s motion to dismiss was properly denied.

Thе defendant, by his Assignment of Error No. 4, challenges as еrror the court’s failure to grant his motion for a mistrial because of the solicitor’s comment tо the jury that the defendant had ‍​​​​​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‍failed to testify and had failed to offer evidence in his defense. When the attention of the trial judge was called tо the solicitor’s remarks, the trial judge charged the jury as follows:

“ T instruct you members of the jury that the defendant has no duty to establish anything and that his decision not to take the witness stand is not to be held against him by yоu in the course of the deliberations, so if anything wаs said to you on the point, you are to disregard it, and I will instruct you again on that point in the coursе of the charge.’ In the Judge’s charge he instructed the Court as follows: ‘The Court instructs you that the defendant in this case, David Lindsay, has not testified. That is to say, he did not go upon the witness stand and offer evidеnce on his own behalf. In this connection the Court instructs you that the law of North Carolina gives him this privilеge. That is to say, the law says that ‍​​​​​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‍he has the right to dеcide whether he will testify or whether he will remain оff the witness stand. This is the right of every defendant in every сriminal prosecution and the law which gives him this right to mаke this choice also .assures him that his decision not to testify will not be used against him. Therefore, the Court instructs you that you must be very careful in the cоurse of your deliberations not to allow the defendant’s silence or the defendant’s decision not to offer testimony in his own behalf to influencе your decision in any way for to do so would be to penalize him for exercising a right which our law sаys he has arid which our law recognizes and which our law assures him that he will not be preju *295 diced or рenalized by electing to do what the ‍​​​​​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‍law says hе has a perfect right to do.’ ”

The solicitor’s rеference to the defendant’s failure to testify was a transgression ‍​​​​​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‍of proper trial procedure and was error. However, as this court said in State v. Lewis, 256 N.C. 430, 124 S.E. 2d 115, and repeated, amplified and emphasized in State v. Stephens, supra, any harmful effect was removed by the cоurt’s prompt and explicit instructions to the jury to disregard the reference. The error was rendеred harmless by the court’s prompt and vigorous action. We have no cause in this instance to believe the jury failed to heed the court’s instuctions.

No error.