In State v. Alexander, 337 N.C. 182, 446 S.E.2d 83 (1994), the defendant assigned error to the following testimony elicited by the State at trial: Prosecutor: Who did you attempt to speak to? Officer Hunt: I attempted to speak to the defendant first. Q: To your knowledge, had he been advised of his rights prior to that time? A: He had been, sir. Q: And did the defendant speak to you or talk to you at all? A: No, sir. If it was, it was to indicate that he wished not to talk to me. Id. at 194, 446 S.E.2d at 90. The defendant argued that the admission of such testimony was an impermissible violation of his right to remain silent, and as such, constituted plain error by the trial court. In rejecting the defendant's argument, our Supreme Court stated that the "comments of the witness were relatively benign" and "that the prosecutor made no attempt to emphasize the fact that defendants did not speak with law enforcement after having been arrested." Id. at 196, 446 S.E.2d at 91. The Court concluded that the impropriety of the testimony "was not sufficient to warrant a new trial." Id.