Criminal Defense

February 12, 2026

State v. Chemuti | Criminal Discovery in North Carolina in 2026

If you are facing criminal charges in North Carolina, recent court decisions may directly affect what evidence your lawyer can obtain and how quickly that evidence becomes available. One of the most important of these rulings is State v. Chemuti, a decision that changes how body-camera and dash-camera recordings are requested, reviewed, and used in criminal cases.

Access to law-enforcement video can shape suppression motions, plea negotiations, and trial strategy. When that access is delayed or restricted, the balance of a criminal case may shift in ways that are difficult to correct later. Understanding how discovery works after Chemuti is therefore part of protecting your legal rights from the earliest stage of a prosecution.

For questions about criminal discovery, suppression issues, or how recent North Carolina case law may affect your defense, Bill Powers is available for legal consultation at Powers Law Firm. Call 704-342-4357 to schedule a confidential consultation. Bill Powers is a trial lawyer with more than three decades of courtroom experience handling criminal defense matters in North Carolina, a past President of the North Carolina Advocates for Justice, and a recipient of the James B. McMillan Distinguished Service Award.

February 10, 2026

Death by Vehicle Prosecutions in North Carolina | What Defense Lawyers Need to Know

by Carolina Attorneys

This guide explains how North Carolina prosecutors and defense lawyers analyze death by vehicle charges, proximate cause, and charging discretion in impaired-driving fatalities

1. The Case May Reach the Prosecutor Long After the Train Has Left the Station

In some North Carolina jurisdictions, prosecutors learn about fatal crashes well after law enforcement has already made critical decisions. Pre-COVID charging decisions in some districts, such as in Mecklenburg County, generally involved officers consulting with the District Attorney’s office before charging in death-by-vehicle cases. That practice ended in many jurisdictions, though it continues in others. Prosecutors may receive case files only after arrest warrants have been issued, charges have been filed, and media coverage has begun. In other prosecutorial districts, prosecutors become involved at the scene and participate directly in the initial charging decision.

January 29, 2026

Mecklenburg County Bond Hearings After Iryna’s Law

by Carolina Attorneys

Mecklenburg County bond hearings follow the North Carolina pretrial release law, yet the way those bond hearings are scheduled, reviewed, and decided in Charlotte reflects the size of the 26th Judicial District, the structure of its felony dockets, and recent statutory changes (Iryna’s Law) that raised the bar for release in certain categories of cases. The result is a process that is more structured and, to some extent, substantively different from those in many other counties.

The statutory framework governing bond hearings changed materially with the enactment of House Bill 307, commonly known as Iryna’s Law, which took effect in North Carolina on December 1, 2025. That legislation revised the pretrial release statutes and expanded the set of cases in which judges begin from the position that release is not appropriate unless the defense provides credible information to the contrary. For defined violent offenses and certain repeat or high-risk charge patterns set out by statute, the law now directs the Court (the Judge) to apply a rebuttable presumption that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure both court appearance and public safety. As a practical matter, that change did not eliminate bond hearings, yet it altered their starting point. Instead of asking what conditions are sufficient for release, the Court must first decide whether the presumption against release has been overcome.

That presumption is not rhetorical or merely symbolic. It functions as a rule of decision that shifts the practical burden at a Mecklenburg County bond hearing. Defense counsel no longer argues, in every instance, from a neutral baseline that favors the least-restrictive release. The hearing instead begins with the court directed to treat detention as the default posture, for certain defined offenses and offenders, unless the defense produces reliable facts showing that structured conditions of release can address appearance risk and community safety. A release order in that setting requires an affirmative judicial finding, supported by the record, not a routine adjustment of bond terms.

January 23, 2026

DUI Checkpoints in North Carolina | 2026 DWI Checkpoint Update

by Carolina Attorneys

DUI checkpoints in North Carolina remain constitutional under a January 2026 Court of Appeals decision that clarifies how police must conduct sobriety checkpoints and license checkpoints.

In North Carolina vs White (“State v. White”) the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed that a DWI checkpoint in Robeson County complied with both the Fourth Amendment and N.C.G.S. § 20-16.3A, the statute governing police checkpoints in North Carolina.

TL;DR State v. White affirms that an organized license, registration, and insurance checkpoint may pass both the primary-purpose inquiry and the Brown v. Texas reasonableness balancing when the trial court finds advance authorization, a neutral stop pattern stopping every vehicle, supervisor control limiting officer discretion, and visible law-enforcement presence. It also reaffirms that North Carolina appellate courts continue to treat marijuana odor as sufficient for probable cause to search a vehicle, notwithstanding the practical difficulty of distinguishing hemp from marijuana, and it treats the SBI hemp memorandum as nonbinding. The opinion is most vulnerable, analytically, in how it handles the written-policy requirement and how quickly it converts structural checkpoint questions into findings insulated by deference.

January 7, 2026

How Stand Your Ground and the Castle Doctrine Work in North Carolina

by Carolina Attorneys

In North Carolina, questions about “stand your ground” turn on how the law evaluates whether the use of force was legally justified. 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.

January 4, 2026

State v. Allison | NC Stand Your Ground Law | Dec. 12, 2025

by Carolina Attorneys

As of 2026, the phrase “stand your ground” is the gateway term that most non-lawyers use when they are trying to understand North 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.

January 1, 2026

Stand Your Ground in North Carolina (2026) | Castle Doctrine

by Carolina Attorneys

In North Carolina, “stand your ground” is governed by a statutory use-of-force framework, including the castle doctrine under 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.

December 24, 2025

Standing to Challenge a Search | NC Search and Seizure Law

by Carolina Attorneys

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 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

December 11, 2025

Miranda Rights in North Carolina Interrogation | Bill Powers

by Carolina Attorneys

Miranda rights in North Carolina give real effect to the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination. Miranda becomes relevant the moment law 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.

December 8, 2025

Retrograde Extrapolation BAC in North Carolina DWI Cases

by Carolina Attorneys

In North Carolina impaired driving cases where retrograde extrapolation becomes relevant, chemical testing is often separated from the driving event by significant delay. 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.