N.C. Gen. Stat. » Chapter 8
NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8-54 (2026)

Defendant in criminal action competent but not compellable to testify

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 8 CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

In the trial of all indictments, complaints, or other proceedings against persons charged with the commission of crimes, offenses or misdemeanors, the person so charged is, at his own request, but not otherwise, a competent witness, and his failure to make such request shall not create any presumption against him. But every such person examined as a witness shall be subject to cross-examination as other witnesses. Except as above provided, nothing in this section shall render any person, who in any criminal proceeding is charged with the commission of a criminal offense, competent or compellable to give evidence against himself, nor render any person compellable to answer any question tending to criminate himself. (1856-7, c. 23; 1866, c. 43, s. 3; 1868-9, c. 209, s. 4; 1881, c. 89, s. 3; c. 110, ss. 2, 3; Code ss. 1353, 1354; Rev., ss. 1634, 1635; C.S., s. 1799.)

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 107 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1948–2025 · leading case: State v. Reid, 434 S.E.2d 193 (N.C. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Reid, 434 S.E.2d 193 (N.C. 1993). · cites it 32× “Article I, Section 23 of the North Carolina Constitution states that a defendant in a criminal prosecution cannot "be compelled to give self-incriminating evidence.”
State v. Chapman, 611 S.E.2d 794 (N.C. 2005). · cites it 9× “Section 8-54 of the North Carolina General Statutes states that “[i]n the trial of all indictments, complaints, or other proceedings against persons charged with the commission of crimes, offenses or misdemeanors, the person so charged is, at his own request, but not otherwise,…”
State v. Ward, 555 S.E.2d 251 (N.C. 2001). · cites it 6× “It is equally well settled that when a defendant exercises his right to silence, it "shall not create any presumption against him," N.C.G.S. § 8-54 (1999), and any comment by counsel on a defendant's failure to testify is improper and is violative of his Fifth Amendment right,…”
State v. Porter, 457 S.E.2d 716 (N.C. 1995). · cites it 9× “This proscription is mirrored in N.C.G.S. § 8-54, which provides that a defendant in a criminal trial cannot be compelled to testify or “answer any question tending to incriminate himself.”
State v. Jennings, 430 S.E.2d 188 (N.C. 1993). · cites it 6× “In Castor , we held that "[a]dverse comments on a defendant's failure to testify at trial are impermissible under North Carolina law, Constitution of North Carolina, Article I, Section 23, N.C.G.S. § 8-54, and under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the…”
State v. Hayes, 334 S.E.2d 741 (N.C. 1985). · cites it 6× “Under N.C.G.S. § 8-54, a criminal defendant is, at his own request, a competent witness in the proceeding against him.”
State v. Banks, 370 S.E.2d 398 (N.C. 1988). · cites it 8× “But applicable also to the question here presented is N.C.G.S. § 8-54 (1986), which *405 gives a person charged with a criminal offense the privilege of testifying in his own behalf but adds that his failure to exercise this privilege "shall not create any presumption against…”
State v. Richardson, 467 S.E.2d 685 (N.C. 1996). · cites it 6× “2d 106, 110 (1965), and state statute, see N.C.G.S. § 8-54 (1986), from commenting on the failure of a defendant to testify at trial, a prosecutor’s statement that the State’s evidence was uncontradicted does not constitute an improper reference to defendant’s failure to testify.”
State v. Brown, 358 S.E.2d 1 (N.C. 1987). · cites it 4× “N.C.G.S. § 8-54 (1986). E.g., State v. Monk, 286 N.”
State v. Kemmerlin, 573 S.E.2d 870 (N.C. 2002). · cites it 3× “I, § 23; N.C.G.S. § 8-54 (2001). Any reference by the prosecutor to a criminal defendant’s right not to testify is error.”
State v. Ross, 367 S.E.2d 889 (N.C. 1988). · cites it 6× “I dissent from the holding of the majority that defendant is entitled to a new trial of this double murder case because of the failure of the trial judge to instruct the jury in accord with N.”
State v. Holder, 418 S.E.2d 197 (N.C. 1992). · cites it 6× “Defendant contends that the court's statements amounted to an improper comment on defendant's decision not to testify and impermissibly gave the jury the impression that the trial court thought it best if the defendant were to testify.”
Show all 107 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.