In State v. Jordan, 305 N.C. 274, 287 S.E.2d 827 (1982), the State, in its closing argument to the jury, "noted that defendant had not produced any alibi witnesses and stated, 'Where are the witnesses who can put him anywhere else?'" Id. at 279-80, 287 S.E.2d at 831. Defendant, on appeal, argued that the foregoing statement by the District Attorney was an "impermissible comment on defendant's failure to testify." Id. at 280, 287 S.E.2d at 831. However, our Supreme Court held that "the prosecutor's remark here was directed solely toward the defendant's failure to offer evidence to rebut the State's case, not at defendant's failure to take the stand himself; as such, the statement did not constitute an impermissible comment on defendant's failure to testify." Id. In State v. Jordan, 120 N.C. App. 364, 462 S.E.2d 234, dismissed and disc. review denied, 342 N.C. 416, 465 S.E.2d 546 (1995) the defendant contended on appeal that the trial court committed reversible error in admitting "a faxed copy of a Connecticut police record check into evidence for sentencing purposes," in violation of North Carolina General Statutes section 15A-1340.4(e). 120 N.C. App. at 370, 462 S.E.2d at 238; N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A-1340.4(e) (1988) (repealed 1993). The Jordan court noted that section 15A-1340.4(e) provided: "'A prior conviction may be proved by stipulation of the parties or by the original or a certified copy of the court record of the prior conviction.'" Id. at 370, 462 S.E.2d at 238-39 (quoting N.C.G.S. 15A-1340.4(e)). The court found that the statutory provision was permissive. Id. at 370, 462 S.E.2d at 239. The court further found that "the reliability of the method of proof is the important inquiry to be made in determining admissibility." Id. The Jordan court noted that defendant's only contention concerning the document's admission was that the fax did not strictly comply with the formalities of section 15A-1340.4(e). However, "defendant did not deny that the police record was complete and accurate." Id. The court concluded that the "faxed, certified copy" of the police record "appeared to be a reliable source of the defendant's prior convictions" and therefore, overruled defendant's assignment of error. Id.