Articles Posted in Criminal Defense

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Contact Information