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 
required for certain crimes. It is one of the most demanding defenses to raise, requiring a high threshold of proof.
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.
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 
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.
If a “knock and talk” crosses the constitutional line, can what officers saw or learned still justify 
a search warrant?
TL;DR Quick Take: North Carolina v. Norman tests the limits of North Carolina’s knock and talk doctrine and asks whether a search warrant can survive when officers use observations gathered during a questionable encounter on private property.
The decision turns on three interrelated questions:
Judicial activism is one of the most debated concepts in American constitutional law. It describes a form of judicial behavior in which 
courts are perceived to go beyond interpreting the law and instead make policy choices that belong to the political branches.
To its critics, judicial activism threatens the separation of powers and undermines democratic accountability.
To its defenders, it represents a necessary means of protecting rights when elected officials fail to do so.
TL;DR Quick Take: North Carolina v. Rogers could prove to be one of the most consequential constitutional rulings in North Carolina criminal 
law in decades. The opinion not only interprets N.C.G.S. § 15A-974 but also redefines how North Carolina courts understand the relationship between the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 20 of the North Carolina State Constitution.
As applied, the Good Faith Exception articulated in State v. Rogers reverses longstanding precedent set forth in North Carolina v. Carter.
The burden quietly shifts to the accused to demonstrate unreasonableness, reversing long-standing Due Process protections and draining both the fruit and the fiber from the “poisonous tree.”
The Supreme Court of North Carolina’s opinion in North Carolina v. Rogers (Oct. 17, 2025) deserves careful study by 
criminal defense and DUI defense lawyers.
TL;DR Quick Take North Carolina v. Rogers reshapes how certain suppression motions may be litigated in North Carolina. The Supreme Court interpreted the 2011 “good faith” amendment to N.C.G.S. §15A-974 as significantly limiting the scope of the exclusionary rule, allowing evidence obtained through unlawful searches to be admitted if officers relied on objectively reasonable belief in the legality of their conduct. The decision narrows the path for defendants seeking suppression and marks a turning point in how trial courts evaluate Fourth Amendment violations.
Editor’s Note: The Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Rogers addressed good-faith reliance on a judicial order, not warrantless arrests or searches. The opinion leaves open whether the same reasoning will apply to warrantless seizures or probable-cause challenges. For now, Rogers appears to narrow the exclusionary rule only in the context of judicially authorized warrants and orders.
Accessing video evidence, body-cam, and dash-cam video in North Carolina potentially just became a lot harder to obtain. 
TL;DR Quick Take: North Carolina v. Chemuti limits how defendants can access police body-worn and dash-camera recordings. The Supreme Court held that Rule 45 subpoenas cannot compel production of law-enforcement video. Instead, defendants must file a petition under N.C.G.S. § 132-1.4A in superior court, which is the exclusive procedure for release.
The Chemuti ruling is significant because, unlike many states, North Carolina provides no traditional right to discovery in cases originating in district court.
Judicial independence is one of the defining principles of American government. It protects the courts from political retaliation, 
intimidation, and coercion, allowing judges to apply the law faithfully rather than bending to public opinion or private pressure.
Without judicial independence, due process would be hollow, and the rule of law would collapse under the weight of fear.
North Carolina’s judiciary stands as a separate and equal branch of government, tracing its power and authority from the state’s earliest constitutional conventions through modern statutes and precedent.
Due process is one of the most enduring phrases in the American constitutional tradition. It appears in the Fifth Amendment, binding the federal government, and in the Fourteenth Amendment, extending the guarantee to the states.
North Carolina’s Constitution also secures due process through Article I, Section 19, which provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property except by the “law of the land.”
Far from being ornamental language, due process reflects a working system of legal discipline that reaches from Magna Carta through North Carolina’s founding conventions into the daily practice of its courts.
Quick Take: North Carolina vs. Wilson (Oct. 2025) holds that a defendant’s jailhouse letter admitting to a 
shooting to law enforcement was admissible as substantive evidence, even when framed as a negotiation.
Jailhouse letters in North Carolina are not protected under Rule 408 and may be used as proof of guilt.
The accused’s communications with law enforcement, including calls and cooperation offers, are generally admissible if voluntary and authenticated.
Carolina Criminal Defense & DUI Lawyer Updates