*For additional information regarding the criterion for inclusion or membership for lawyer associations, awards, & certifications click image for link.

A Criminal Defense Deep Dive by Bill Powers, Board Certified Criminal Law Specialist (NBTA/NBLSC), Powers Law Firm, P.A. (Charlotte, NC)

As a criminal defense attorney in North Carolina, I am asked to explain the legal difference between planning a crime and attempting Police officer standing beside legal books and scales of justice with text reading attempt to commit a crime, North Carolina criminal law rights graphic. a crime. If you or a loved one face charges related to Criminal Attempt in NC, understanding this distinction can be fundamental to formulating an effective defense strategy. The difference is not merely academic. It is the line that separates a “thought crime” from a felony conviction. This distinction rests primarily on two fundamental concepts. those being the required intent and the overt act.

A recent opinion from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, State v. Vaughn, COA24-1089, provides an example of why a trial court’s failure to properly instruct a jury on these concepts may constitute reversible, prejudicial error. The case serves as a reminder that when the State seeks to convict a person of an attempt to commit a crime, the prosecution must prove a mental state more demanding than that required for the completed underlying offense.

Blood testing is often viewed as the most dependable way to measure alcohol concentration in a North Carolina DWI case. The scienceDWI blood testing illustration with a Charlotte police officer, North Carolina map, legal books, scales of justice, and paperwork emphasizing rights in a North Carolina DWI case behind BAC tests is powerful, but it is also technical, layered with protocols, human decision points, and laboratory processes that must be followed with precision. When a “drunk driving” case shifts from the roadside to the laboratory, the entire conversation changes. You move from dexterity exercises to molecular chemistry, and from visible performance to physics, gas chromatography and mass spectroscopy, both topics that an average juror would never see unless brought to life at trial by defense counsel.

DWI defense lawyer Bill Powers has spent more than thirty years watching how blood testing evidence develops in courtrooms across Mecklenburg County and throughout North Carolina. During that time, he has cross examined toxicologists, reviewed extensive laboratory documentation, and taught officers and lawyers about breath and blood science, standardized field sobriety tests, and trial strategies and protocols. His experience includes the practical knowledge of how jurors interpret toxicology evidence and how those interpretations can shift once they hear how the underlying science actually works.

If you are dealing with a DWI charge that involves blood testing, or if you are a lawyer looking to sharpen your trial approach to forensic toxicology, please contact the DWI defense lawyers at Powers Law Firm in Charlotte. Call or TEXT 704-342-4357 to discuss how careful preparation and scientific clarity can shape the outcome of a case.

There’s something about Thanksgiving that brings families together and sometimes tears them apart before the pumpkin pie hits the Thanksgiving arrests in Charlotte often involve assault allegations, no-contact rules, and police response. Learn how holiday cases move forward in court. table. As a Charlotte criminal defense attorney who has practiced in Mecklenburg County for more than 30 years, I can tell you this without hesitation the Wednesday before Thanksgiving through the Sunday after is one of the busiest stretches of the year for assault arrests. Add alcohol, old grievances, political arguments, and the pressure of hosting (or being hosted by) people you strategically avoid the other 51 weeks of the year, and you have a recipe for criminal charges.

This isn’t a joke. If you’re reading this, there’s a good chance you or someone you care about is facing assault charges stemming from a holiday gathering in Charlotte or Mecklenburg County. Let’s talk about what you’re dealing with, what the law says, and what happens next.

Why Does Thanksgiving Week Lead to So Many Assault Arrests in Charlotte?

QUICK ANSWER: In North Carolina, marijuana possession remains illegal under NCGS § 90-94, regardless of changing attitudes in other states. Charlotte courtrooms now explicitly ban marijuana odor with posted signs. While the smell itself isn’t a crime, appearing in court smelling like marijuana can damage your credibility, affect sentencing decisions, and signal disrespect to judges, potentially worsening case outcomes before you say a word.

Table of Contents

North Carolina law prohibits the possession, sale, and trafficking of controlled substances. Yet the same State that prosecutes those U.S. revenuer enforcing Prohibition laws in North Carolina, symbolizing state taxation, moonshine raids, and the roots of taxing crime. offenses also taxes and therefore profits them. Is that right? Does that make sense? Should the government profit from crime? Is it OK to tax Drugs? Extortion? What about Illegal Pornography, Prostitution and Human Trafficking? Where do we, the governed, draw the line?

The Controlled Substance Tax, codified at N.C.G.S. § 105-113.105, operates on the premise that illegal drugs have taxable value even though their sale and possession are criminal acts. The idea that “income is income” regardless of source smacks of Machiavelli and a willingness to bend basic moral imperatives. Beneath that procedural logic lies a troubling contradiction, if not outright hypocrisy.

Questions about punishment, profit, and fairness aren’t theoretical when you are the one standing before the court. North Carolina law distinguishes between fines, forfeiture, and taxation, but for clients facing criminal charges, those differences often feel academic. Bill Powers and the Powers Law Firm handle serious criminal matters in Mecklenburg, Union, Iredell, Gaston, Rowan, and Lincoln Counties, examining how the law operates in real courtrooms, not just in theory. Bill Powers is a widely regarded North Carolina criminal defense attorney, educator, and legal commentator with more than thirty-three years of courtroom and trial experience. He is recognized throughout the state for his work on impaired driving, criminal law, and legal education, and is a recipient of the North Carolina State Bar Distinguished Service Award. For select legal matters, Bill Powers consults on a statewide basis. To discuss your case in confidence, TEXT or call 704-342-4357.

This post continues the Breath, Blood, and Bull series, an in-depth look at how science, procedure, and perception collide in the North Carolina standardized field sobriety tests illustration with police officer patrol car law books and scales of justice for DWI rights education prosecution and defense of DWI cases in North Carolina. The first installment examined the limits of chemical testing. The second article turned to the machines that interpret alcohol breath samples into evidence, using the “breathalyzer.” This post focuses on the field sobriety tests or “SFSTs” that often precede BAC testing.

Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs) are a battery of three roadside exercises: Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN), Walk-and-Turn (WAT), and One-Leg Stand (OLS), designed by NHTSA to gauge impairment.

When prosecutors rely on Standardized Field Sobriety Tests to support a DWI charge, the assumption is that these dexterity exercises offer reliable, objective proof of impairment. Yet the science tells a more complicated story.

The North Carolina Court of Appeals’ decision in State v. Hickman (COA24-893, filed November 5, 2025) revisits a foundational Civil warrants and criminal searches in North Carolina courtroom scene symbolizing Fourth Amendment protections and limits question in constitutional law. When government agents enter private property without a warrant, what happens to the evidence they obtain?

While the case involves a Department of Revenue tax warrant rather than a traditional criminal investigation, its implications extend beyond tax collection. It clarifies the continuing role of the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 20 of the North Carolina Constitution in protecting private dwellings from unauthorized searches and seizures.

The opinion also reaffirms an older, quieter truth that sometimes gets lost in modern exclusionary-rule debate.

The Voluntary Intoxication defense in North Carolina criminal law is not an excuse for unlawful conduct but an evidentiary doctrine that can negate the specific intent North Carolina judge in courtroom illustrating the legal role of trial judges in voluntary intoxication defense cases involving specific intent crimes required for certain crimes. It is one of the most demanding defenses to raise, requiring a high threshold of proof.

Key Principles of the Voluntary Intoxication Defense

The defense operates as a rule of mental incapacity tied to the proof of mens rea (guilty mind), specifically in relation to specific intent crimes.

The Limits of Chemical Certainty: The Auto-Brewery Syndrome & DWI Charges 

Auto-Brewery Syndrome (ABS) remains a bit of a theoretical curiosity. It represents a measurable biochemical anomaly during which yeast or bacteria residing in the gastrointestinal tract convert carbohydrates into ethanol within the human body. North Carolina judge in a courtroom setting representing judicial evaluation of scientific evidence and credibility in DWI cases involving Auto-Brewery Syndrome

Though somewhat rare, it is medically documented, scientifically verifiable in some instances, and possibly legally consequential, at  least relative to DUI charges in North Carolina. 

Voluntary intoxication occupies one of the narrowest spaces in North Carolina criminal law. It is not a general justification for unlawful conduct, nor is it a plea for North Carolina judge in courtroom reflecting on voluntary intoxication defense and the legal standard for criminal charges involving specific intent crimes sympathy.

Instead, voluntary intoxication functions as a limited doctrine that may, under rare circumstances, negate the specific intent required for particular crimes.

The defense reflects a long-standing tension between moral accountability and the requirement that the State prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt.