Justia Lawyer Rating
best Lawyer
Super Lawyer - Top 100
best Lawyers
Avvo Rating 10.0
AV Preeminent
The National Trial Lawyers
The best Lawyers in America
CLEA
Advocates for Justice
Business North Carolina Legal Elite - 2023
DUI Defense
NBTA
DUI Defense Lawyers Association
*For additional information regarding the criterion for inclusion or membership for lawyer associations, awards, & certifications click image for link.

by

In North Carolina, questions about “stand your ground” turn on how the law evaluates whether the use of force was legally justified. Image representing a judge North Carolina in courtroom representing how self-defense, castle doctrine, and stand your ground law are evaluated under NC criminal statutes That evaluation depends on where an encounter occurs, how it begins, and the legal consequences that flow from those facts.

1. Location affects the legal starting point

North Carolina does not treat all self-defense claims the same. Where an encounter occurs determines which legal framework applies. Inside a home, and in areas the law treats as part of the home, the analysis begins with statutory presumptions. Outside those protected locations, the law applies a different structure.

Continue reading

by

As of 2026, the phrase “stand your ground” is the gateway term that most non-lawyers use when they are trying to understand North Illustration representing North Carolina castle doctrine and stand your ground law, showing law enforcement, scales of justice, and legal standards for home defense and use of force Carolina self-defense law.  N.C.G.S. § 14-51.3 addresses when defensive force, including deadly force, may be used in a place where you have the lawful right to be and describes the absence of a duty to retreat in defined circumstances. The “castle doctrine” is related, but it is not the same rule with a different label. It is a separate statutory framework, centered on N.C.G.S. § 14-51.2, that applies to defined protected locations. That changes the analysis by using legislative presumptions and immunity concepts rather than leaving everything to a free-form reasonableness debate.

The Supreme Court of North Carolina’s decision in State v. Allison, No. 103PA24, filed December 12, 2025, addresses how trial courts must instruct juries when the defense seeks a castle-doctrine instruction under N.C.G.S. § 14-51.2. The opinion reinforces that the statute must be given as written, including its definitions, presumptions, and rebuttal structure, and that reverting to pre-statute reasonableness instructions is legal error.

The Court reversed and remanded for a new trial because the jury instructions allowed jurors to decide reasonableness and necessity outside the statutory presumption framework and because the jury was not instructed that curtilage is part of the “home” under the statute.

Continue reading

by

In North Carolina, “stand your ground” is governed by a statutory use-of-force framework, including the castle doctrine under North Carolina castle doctrine and stand your ground law represented by trial judge N.C.G.S. § 14-51.2 and the no-duty-to-retreat provisions in N.C.G.S. § 14-51.3.

The castle doctrine law in NC operates through statutory definitions, mandatory presumptions, and burden shifting, not necessarily through the generalized reasonableness inquiry often associated with common law self-defense. Put simply, once the statutory requirements are established, North Carolina law limits what a jury considers and when proportionality or necessity is determined.

The Supreme Court of North Carolina has enforced that statutory structure. In North Carolina v Phillips (also referred to as State v. Phillips) and North Carolina v Allison (State v. Allison), the Court reversed convictions where trial courts instructed juries to decide reasonableness and necessity outside the statute’s presumption framework. Those decisions confirm that jury instructions must follow the statute’s sequencing and that departures from that structure may produce reversible error.

Continue reading

by

In the recent appellate decision of North Carolina v. Escalante (also cited as State v. Escalante), No. COA25-64, filed December 17, 2025, the North Carolina Court of Image representaing police officer testifying in court illustrating Fourth Amendment search and seizure issues under North Carolina criminal law Appeals examined whether the defendant had the legal right, known as standing, to challenge the legality of electronic surveillance used in his arrest. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s ruling that the defendant lacked standing to seek suppression because he could not demonstrate a personal privacy interest in the phone that was tracked.

At the Powers Law Firm, we enjoy helping clients navigate complex legal issues. Bill Powers, a seasoned trial attorney with more than three decades of courtroom experience, is a former President of the North Carolina Advocates for Justice and a recipient of the North Carolina State Bar’s John B. McMillan Distinguished Service Award. He is a widely regarded criminal defense lawyer in North Carolina and a frequent speaker and seminar host in the legal community. If you have questions about your legal rights, we invite you to reach out to Bill Powers at Powers Law Firm for guidance.

TL;DR “Hot Take” in North Carolina vs. Escalante

Continue reading

by

I’ve been thinking about Governor Jim Hunt since learning of his passing, and it pulled me back to a time in my life I had not revisitedGOVERNOR JIM HUNT NORTH CAROLINA in years.

It feels like a long time ago now. I was a student at NC State, somewhere around 1986 or 1987. I had recently changed majors, moving away from a science-heavy course load into something more liberal-arts centered.

As part of that shift, I was informed I needed an internship. The whole idea felt foreign to me. I was used to labs, lab reports, and exams that tested concrete knowledge. This was different, and at the time I remember thinking it was silly, maybe a bit touchy-feely.  Squishy, if you will.

Continue reading

by

Claims that ketogenic diets can routinely cause false DUI readings have become staples of internet legal forums, social media explainers, and unsupervised biohacking communities lacking peer review or clinical validation, despite the absence of supporting forensic or toxicology data. The narrative usually follows a predictable formula. Ketosis produces acetone. Breath and blood devices confuse acetone for alcohol. Innocent drivers are misidentified as impaired.

The science behind that story is far more limited and problematic than some proponents acknowledge.

Understanding where ketogenic metabolism matters, and where it does not, involves separating three subjects that are often blended into one. Those are:

Continue reading

by

Search the phrase “per se DWI North Carolina,” and the results look deceptively confident. AI summaries and legal directories will tell you that if your blood test hits a The graphic reads PER SE DUI MYTH to signify the legal defense strategy of challenging the automatic assumption of guilt based on a chemical test alone in a North Carolina DWI case certain number, a conviction is inevitable.

It is not the language of the statute. It is not the language used to instruct juries. It is a mantra of sorts that has been repeated so often it now masquerades as doctrine.

North Carolina’s DWI statute does not use the phrase per se impairment for alcohol or marijuana, and North Carolina’s jury instructions do not tell juries that a specific number automatically requires a finding of guilt.  That phrase does not appear anywhere in N.C.G.S. 20-138.1.

Continue reading

by

Miranda rights in North Carolina give real effect to the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination. Miranda becomes relevant the moment law Miranda Rights in North Carolina explained through Fifth Amendment custodial interrogation and police questioning principles enforcement transitions from general investigation to custodial interrogation, limiting what officers may ask before warnings (the advisement of legal rights) are given and what statements prosecutors may later use at trial.

The December 2025 decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals in State v. Mitchell provides an illustration of how Miranda is applied in real-life, sometimes complicated scenarios.  Miranda disputes are resolved by analyzing custody and interrogation standards, not the outward circumstances of a search or arrest. It can be an opaque (at times) doctrinal line between permissible police questions and unconstitutional interrogation.

If you have questions about your Miranda rights in North Carolina or are uncertain whether law enforcement complied with Fifth Amendment protections, Bill Powers at the Powers Law Firm has more than thirty years of practical courtroom experience handling criminal charges in North Carolina. Bill Powers is a widely recognized defense attorney dedicated to legal education and advocacy. He is a former President of the North Carolina Advocates for Justice and a recipient of the North Carolina State Bar Distinguished Service Award. Call or text 704-342-4357 to schedule a confidential consultation.

Continue reading

by

In North Carolina impaired driving cases where retrograde extrapolation becomes relevant, chemical testing is often separated from the driving event by significant delay. Retrograde Extrapolation educational graphic explaining forensic BAC back-calculation used in North Carolina DWI cases, depicting law enforcement and courtroom evidence analysis. This is most commonly seen in serious vehicular prosecutions where impaired driving serves as a predicate offense, including collision investigations involving injury or death, where scene management, medical transport, search warrant procedures, and hospital blood draws may delay specimen collection for three or more hours.

This timing gap can create an evidentiary question that prosecutors sometimes attempt to address using a technique known as retrograde extrapolation, a calculation intended to estimate a prior blood alcohol concentration based on a later chemical test.

Retrograde extrapolation relies not on statutory fiat but on biology. Whether it carries scientifically reliable, relevant evidentiary value in any individual case depends on the science of alcohol absorption, distribution, and elimination. Put simply, contrary to the assertions of some, it’s neither clear-cut nor fait accompli.

Continue reading

by

Drug-based DWI prosecutions in North Carolina operate under an evidentiary framework that differs substantially from alcohol enforcement. In DUI cases involving drugsDrug DWI in North Carolina graphic showing police officer beside law books, courtroom scales, and gavel representing drugged driving charges (sometimes called DUID – driving under the influence of drugs) or “drugged driving” by the general public, the forensic analysis and legal issues tend to be significantly more complex.  

Unlike alcohol, for which decades of research have provided relatively clear thresholds (like 0.08 BAC) and relatively well-understood pharmacology, psychoactive drugs present a diverse and evolving challenge. 

Alcohol impairment is supported by decades of controlled laboratory research, standardized psychomotor testing models, and population-level epidemiology that correlate rising blood alcohol concentrations with relatively predictable losses of cognitive and motor functioning at certain BAC levels.

Continue reading