Does a defendant have an absolute constitutional right not to testify?

Dermesrobian contends the trial court erred when it referred in voir dire to a "privilege" not to testify instead of an "absolute constitutional right" not to testify. He relies upon CALCRIM No. 355 ["a defendant has an absolute constitutional right not to testify"] and People v. Ibarra (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1191-1192 [CALCRIM No. 355 upheld]. The claim has no merit.

The trial court correctly instructed the jury, pursuant to CALCRIM No. 355, that Dermesrobian had an "absolute constitutional right" not to testify. (CALCRIM No. 355.) Its additional use of the word "privilege" during voir dire did not contradict this instruction and was consistent with the law. (e.g. Carter v. Kentucky (1981) 450 U.S. 288, 301-301 [a "no-adverse-inference" instruction protects a defendant's constitutional "privilege" not to testify].) Dermesrobian offers no contrary authority.

The judgment is affirmed.