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

On May 29, 2026, reporting surrounding the United States Supreme Court’s review of a Mississippi death penalty case again pushed one of the oldest constitutional problems in American criminal law back into public discussion. The issue involves racial discrimination in jury selection under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), and whether prosecutors improperly struck black jurors during a capital murder trial.

The opinion matters far beyond Mississippi. Jury selection disputes are a regular aspect of criminal trials in North Carolina. Prosecutors, defense lawyers, and trial judges still wrestle with the practical reality that Batson litigation remains one of the hardest constitutional violations to prove cleanly and one of the easiest constitutional protections to weaken through procedural language. Readers should care because jury selection determines who exercises the power of judgment in a criminal courtroom. A constitutional right means little if discriminatory conduct can be repackaged as “strategy,” “demeanor,” or “trial preference.”

TL;DR Batson Challenges |Racial Bias During Voir Dire Jury Selection

Continue reading

by

On May 26, 2026, the United States Supreme Court denied Florida’s motion for leave to file an original lawsuit against California and Washington over commercial driver’s licenses issued to certain noncitizens Florida claimed were not eligible under federal CDL rules. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, arguing the Court should have allowed the interstate dispute to proceed.

If you live in North Carolina, your driver’s license somewhat sits at the center of a broader national argument involving immigration law, federal authority, interstate recognition of licenses, commercial trucking, and the REAL ID Act.

That dispute creates an interesting opportunity to explain what REAL ID actually does in North Carolina, what it does not do, and why the issue is legally more complicated than political talking points suggest.

Continue reading

by

Police can enter a home without a warrant under the emergency aid exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. Also called the emergency assistance exception or emergency doctrine, this exception permits warrantless home entry when officers have an objectively reasonable basis to believe someone inside is seriously injured or imminently threatened with serious injury. On January 14, 2026, the United States Supreme Court decided Case v. Montana, reaffirming that probable cause is not required for emergency aid entry while rejecting a lower reasonable-suspicion approach. This guide explains when warrantless entry into a home may be lawful, what Case v. Montana changed, and how North Carolina courts will likely apply the doctrine.

Written by Bill Powers, a North Carolina criminal defense lawyer with 33 years (since 1992) of courtroom experience. Bill is a Board-Certified Criminal Law Specialist through the National Board of Trial Advocacy / National Board of Legal Specialty Certification and a former President of the North Carolina Advocates for Justice. Powers Law Firm represents clients in criminal, traffic, and impaired driving matters in the Charlotte area and accepts select serious felony driving and vehicular homicide cases across North Carolina.

Part I: Search Warrants | Constitutional Foundation

Continue reading

by

On May 20, 2026, the North Carolina Court of Appeals decided State v. Myers, a case that may quietly create one of the stranger jurisdictional and constitutional problems in modern North Carolina traffic-stop litigation. The opinion itself appears relatively narrow at first glance. Superior Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate contested standalone traffic ticket infractions unless N.C.G.S. § 7A-271(d) applies, even if those infractions are indicted alongside related felony and misdemeanor charges. Digging a bit deeper, the opinion more subtly raises a harder question for defense lawyers going forward.  What happens when the alleged traffic infraction is not properly triable in Superior Court, yet that same alleged violation is the entire constitutional basis for the felony stop, detention, seizure, or arrest?

TL;DR:  A New Hanover County jury convicted defendant of felony fleeing to elude arrest by motor vehicle and misdemeanor resisting a public officer. The jury also found them responsible for two traffic infractions, those being failure to signal a lane change and failure to carry a valid driver’s license. The Superior Court consolidated the misdemeanor conviction with the infractions and entered judgment. The Court of Appeals vacated the consolidated judgment, holding that Superior Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the contested standalone infractions because they were not lesser-included violations and the defendant did not admit responsibility. The fact that the infractions were included in an indictment returned by a grand jury did not cure the jurisdictional defect.

N.C.G.S. § 7A-253 sets forth that original and exclusive jurisdiction for the adjudication and disposition of infractions lies in District Court, except as provided in N.C.G.S. § 7A-271(d). Superior Court must submit an infraction to the jury when it is a lesser-included violation of a criminal action properly before the court. Superior Court may also accept an admission of responsibility to an infraction when it is either lesser-included or a related charge. Myers did not fit either category. The defendant did not admit responsibility, and the alleged infractions were not lesser-included violations of the felony or misdemeanor charges.

Continue reading

by

North Carolina DWI conviction data show a court system in which most convictions resulted in Level 5 punishment (the lowest level), probation was far more common than an active jail sentence, guilty pleas resolved the overwhelming share of cases, and some convictions took more than one year to reach sentencing. These patterns come from the FY 2024 Quick Facts report, published in October 2025 by the North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, which is the latest official statewide DWI conviction dataset currently available from NC Courts.

The report is useful because it gives a statewide snapshot of convictions. It is limited because it does not tell you whether a pending DWI charge in 2026 will be contested, negotiated, tried, or resolved by plea.

TL;DR | The latest official North Carolina DWI Quick Facts report, published in October 2025, analyzes FY 2024 conviction data. It reports 24,694 DWI convictions, with 58% sentenced at Level 5, 94% receiving probation, 6% receiving an active sentence, and 92% resolved by guilty plea. The report does not include arrests, dismissals, pending cases, acquittals, reduced charges, DMV consequences, or case activity after the reporting period. NC Courts has not published a fixed release date for the calendar year 2025 report.

Continue reading

by

WARNING:  If your child is facing criminal charges in Charlotte and you don’t want to hear the truth, STOP READING NOW.  This blog post isn’t for you. If you want to know how things really work in the legal system, from experienced defense lawyers who honestly care but also tell it like it is, what follows might save you a whole lot of heartache and pain.

Starting off, know this:

  • Defense lawyers understand your child is a good person
Continue reading

by

Proof of DWI charges in North Carolina does not always require an officer to see the vehicle move or the defendant behind the wheel. In State v. Trexler, the North Carolina Supreme Court sets forth what evidence can prove the operation of a vehicle (a prima facie essential element of the offense) when law enforcement arrives after a crash and determines who was driving from statements, including confessions, physical and forensic evidence, witness observations, and the surrounding circumstances.

Trexler matters because of the State’s Burden of Proof. An overturned vehicle, signs of impairment, a breath test result, and a defendant’s statements may be enough in one case, but not so in another. The legal question (and factual inquiry) involves whether the evidence proves more than the defendant’s mere presence near a wrecked car supports a reasonable inference, sometimes predicated on circumstantial evidence, that the person charged actually drove while impaired.

TL;DR | Trexler, Prima Facie Proof of Operation, Corpus Delicti, and the State’s Burden

Continue reading

by

Substitute expert testimony in North Carolina criminal cases continues to develop, as evidence in the May 2026 Court of Appeals decision in State v. Phillips.  A substitute expert may testify when the opinion comes from evidence the expert can independently review, such as photographs of visible injuries. The Confrontation Clause problem may be subject to review when the Rule 702 opinion depends on the truth of what an absent examiner recorded, measured, observed, charted, tested, or concluded.

That distinction matters in criminal defense because expert testimony can sound scientific even when it rests on human assumptions that were never tested in court. A jury may hear the word “independent” and assume the witness did the work. Phillips reminds lawyers, judges, and anyone facing criminal charges that the real question is not whether the witness has credentials. The real question may involve what the opinion is based on.

TL;DR | Substitute Expert Testimony

Continue reading

by

Stare decisis (“to stand by things decided”) sounds like a dry Latin phrase until the Supreme Court changes course in a way that affects constitutional rights, voting rules, criminal procedure, business regulation, privacy, speech, or the structure of government. Then the doctrine becomes something much larger than a law school definition. It becomes a question about institutional trust.

Stare decisis means courts generally stand by what has already been decided. Put simply, they don’t change “settled law” willy-nilly, on a whim, under political pressure, or in response to prevailing popular/public opinion or feelings.

It also does not mean every old case remains untouchable. It does not mean a wrong decision must remain law forever. It means the legal system has memory. Judges do not write on a blank slate every time a case reaches the courthouse. Prior decisions matter because people, legislatures, lawyers, businesses, prosecutors, defendants, courts, and public officials build their conduct around settled law.

Continue reading

by

If you have a criminal charge, a traffic matter, an impaired driving case in North Carolina, or a related legal issue that might affect your license, liberty, family, job, reputation, or future, knowing how to work effectively with a defense lawyer is an important first step. Lawyers focus on case analysis, strategy, negotiation, and courtroom advocacy. The client’s role in that is important. We need to know, early on, what really happened.

That sounds simple until fear takes over. A pending case can make normally very reasonable folks act in ways that can hurt them in the long run. They start talking to witnesses, texting, and even trying to call the charging officer.  Sometimes they explain themselves online or respond to a snarky comment on social media. Occasionally, clients hide facts from their lawyer because the truth seems too embarrassing.

To be clear, the lawyer-client relationship is not built on flattery, blind trust, or constant reassurance. Defense lawyers truly want to help their clients. That’s why we went to law school. We enjoy helping people. We want to make a difference. A solid professional relationship and trust can take time.  Here’s What NOT To Do when it comes to working with your lawyer:

Continue reading