§ 8-54 (2001). Any reference by the prosecutor to a criminal defendant’s right not to testify is error. State v. Reid, 334 N.C. 551, 554, 434 S.E.2d 193, 196 (1993). However, such a comment may be cured by “a withdrawal of the remark or by a statement from the court that it was improper, followed by an instruction to the jury not to consider the failure of the accused to offer himself as a witness.” State v. McCall, 286 N.C. 472, 487, 212 S.E.2d 132, 141 (1975), death sentence vacated, 429 U.S. 912, 50 L. Ed. 2d 278 (1976); see also Reid, 334 N.C. at 556, 434 S.E.2d at 197. The trial court’s curative instructions to the jury should occur promptly after the comment is made rather than in general jury charges of instruction. State v. Gregory, 348 N.C. 203, 210, 499 S.E.2d 753, 758, (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 952, 142 L. Ed. 2d 315
holding that prosecutors comment on defendants failure to testify constituted plain error affecting the defendants substantial rights holding that the prejudicial effect of a direct reference to an accuseds failure to testify normally cannot be cured by an instruction to disregard holding that the prosecutors comment regarding the defendants failure to call a potential witness did not shift the burden of proof because it did not implicate the defendants fifth amendment right not to testify holding that trial judges admonition of the jury to disregard prosecutors comments on the defendants failure to testify did not cure the error holding that prosecutors direct comments on a defendants failure to testify were not cured by subsequent inclusion in the jury charge of an instruction regarding the defendants right not to testify