Criminal Defense

April 21, 2025

Plea Bargains in North Carolina

A substantial number of criminal charges in North Carolina are resolved through plea bargains and negotiated pleas, rather than a jury trial. That doesn’t mean your case isn’t serious or that the charges are minor. It means the criminal justice system is built in a way that often encourages negotiated resolutions instead of courtroom battles.

Plea bargains are widely used, deeply embedded in legal practice, and frequently misunderstood. If you’re facing charges, understanding how plea bargains work — and why they exist — can help you make informed decisions with your lawyer.

The Art of Plea Negotiations & Plea Bargains

April 17, 2025

What Happens After a Sex Offender Conviction in North Carolina?

by Carolina Attorneys

A conviction for some sex offense charges in North Carolina brings long-term consequences that go far beyond jail time or probation. While any criminal conviction may affect employment, housing, and personal reputation, convictions for offenses that require sex offender registration carry additional obligations and restrictions, some imposed immediately, others lasting for years or decades.

These restrictions affect not only the person’s liberty but also their ability to live, work, and interact with others in ordinary ways. Some consequences arise from the sex offender registration statutes themselves, while others flow from supervision conditions, civil laws, or agency policies tied to registration status.

This post outlines what happens after a conviction for an offense subject to registration under North Carolina’s sex offender laws. It explains who must register, what registration involves, how long it lasts, and what limitations follow. It also reviews additional restrictions and monitoring requirements imposed after release, as well as the legal framework behind them.

April 16, 2025

Can Misconduct Cause You to Lose Your Right to a Lawyer?

by Carolina Attorneys

Beyond an express waiver, a defendant can also lose the right to a lawyer through forfeiture in certain circumstances. Forfeiture of counsel is a doctrine that applies when a defendant’s own serious misconduct effectively forfeits the right to an attorney. Unlike a waiver, which is a voluntary relinquishment of a known right, forfeiture does not require an informed choice by the defendant – it is a consequence of behavior that is incompatible with the continued services of counsel.

North Carolina appellate courts have made clear that forfeiture is reserved for severe situations and is not to be invoked lightly, given the fundamental nature of the right at stake. The North Carolina Supreme Court has emphasized that forfeiture of counsel should be found only in rare circumstances where the defendant’s actions (serious misconduct) frustrate the purpose of the right to counsel and prevent the trial from moving forward.

In other words, only when a defendant’s conduct is so egregious that it entirely undermines the fair and orderly administration of justice will a court deem the right to counsel forfeited. Examples might include assaulting one’s attorney or brazen obstruction of the proceedings.

April 12, 2025

Waiver of Counsel in North Carolina

by Carolina Attorneys

Waiver of Counsel: Legal Framework and Standard of Review

Criminal defendants have a fundamental right to the assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I of the North Carolina Constitution. A defendant also has the right to proceed without counsel and represent himself or herself, but such waiver of counsel must be made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. North Carolina law requires trial courts to conduct a thorough inquiry before accepting a waiver of the right to counsel.

This inquiry is codified in N.C.G.S. § 15A-1242, which provides that a judge may allow a defendant to proceed pro se only after confirming that the defendant:

April 9, 2025

Hearsay Cross-Examination and Constructive Possession

by Carolina Attorneys

In North Carolina v. Capps, the North Carolina Court of Appeals examined two key issues arising from a felonious possession of stolen goods conviction: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the defendant’s constructive possession of stolen property; and (2) whether the trial court erred by excluding as hearsay certain testimony during cross-examination.

The published April 2025 opinion provides insight into how appellate courts analyze hearsay preservation requirements and the evidentiary threshold for constructive possession in criminal cases. The court ultimately found no error, emphasizing the importance of proper trial procedure (like making an offer of proof for excluded evidence) and outlining the incriminating circumstances that supported submitting the case to the jury. Below, we break down the court’s reasoning on each issue and highlight practical lessons for attorneys and judges handling similar evidentiary and sufficiency questions.

Facing serious felony charges can be overwhelming. At Powers Law Firm, we offer steady, experienced guidance to help navigate the legal system with clarity and care. We represent clients across the Charlotte metro region, including Union, Iredell, Mecklenburg, Gaston, Rowan, and Lincoln Counties. To talk through your situation and explore your options, call 704-342-4357.

April 5, 2025

Sexual Discrimination During Jury Selection

by Carolina Attorneys

This case is a reminder: if you’re raising a claim of sexual discrimination in jury selection, the challenge must be made clearly and at the right time—or it may be lost forever. The decision also highlights how hard it is to get relief on these issues after conviction.

Here’s what we’ll cover in this post:

Preservation of Constitutional Jury-Selection Claims

April 2, 2025

Special Jury Instruction – Defining Marijuana vs. Hemp

by Carolina Attorneys

Helping explain the 0.3 THC threshold and marijuana vs hemp issues to the jury likely necessitates a jury instruction that adds important language to pattern jury instruction that fully and accurately reflects the definition of hemp consistent with N.C.G.S. 90-87, NC PJI 260.10, NC PJI 260-15, NC PJI 260.17 et al, and North Carolina v. Ruffin. To that end, it’s helpful to provide specific proposed language to the Court to address the 0.3% THC threshold during the charge conference.

Obviously, whether that’s necessary and/or appropriate depends on the fact pattern and must be tailored to case specifics. To be clear, there is more involved than THC concentration, particularly as it may pertain to cannabis concentrate (“shatter”). Courts are still addressing how to apply these legal distinctions.

At Powers Law Firm, we help clients navigate these issues in court. If you have questions about how hemp laws may impact your case or are facing marijuana-related charges, TEXT or call attorney Bill Powers at 704-342-4357 or email Bill@CarolinaAttorneys.com to discuss your situation.

March 29, 2025

Marijuana or Hemp | The 0.3% THC Threshold in NC Law

by Carolina Attorneys

Under North Carolina law, “marijuana” is a controlled substance defined to exclude legal hemp. Following the 2018 federal Farm Bill, NC amended its statutes to align with the 0.3% THC threshold. Specifically, hemp is defined as cannabis (any part of the plant, including derivatives) with ≤0.3% delta-9 THC by dry weight. Marijuana covers cannabis plants or extracts except those meeting the hemp definition.

In effect, cannabis with more than 0.3% THC is illegal “marijuana,” while cannabis at or below 0.3% THC is legal hemp. This distinction can be critical in criminal cases – it means a defendant should not be convicted of a marijuana offense for possessing hemp. However, because hemp and marijuana look and smell identical, this threshold poses challenges in court.

Juries may benefit from guidance to avoid conflating legal hemp with illegal marijuana. Defense attorneys have increasingly sought jury instructions to clarify this 0.3% THC requirement as part of the definition of the crime.

March 22, 2025

Marijuana Identification in North Carolina: State v. Ruffin and Rule 702 Expert Testimony

by Carolina Attorneys

The North Carolina Court of Appeals’ recent decision in State v. Ruffin, ___ N.C. App. ___ (Mar. 5, 2025), provides guidance on marijuana identification in the post-hemp era. The defendant in Ruffin was convicted of multiple drug offenses, including the sale and delivery of marijuana, arising from a controlled buy in 2021.

On appeal, the accused challenged the identification of the seized plant material as marijuana (arguing it could have been legal hemp), the admissibility of both lay and expert testimony under the North Carolina Rules of Evidence, the sufficiency of the evidence to distinguish marijuana from hemp, the trial court’s jury instructions, and several aspects of his sentencing

The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences. This article analyzes Ruffin and its implications for North Carolina law, with specific reference to Rule 702 Testimony by Expert Witnesses.

March 19, 2025

Jury Selection in High-Profile Trials: Can P. Diddy Get a Fair Jury?

by Carolina Attorneys

As hip-hop mogul Sean “P. Diddy” Combs heads to trial on federal sex trafficking charges, a critical question looms: can he get an impartial jury despite his fame and the salacious allegations? This is no ordinary case – nearly everyone has heard of P. Diddy. The worry is that half the jury pool could be star-struck fans while the other half have already judged him guilty based on headlines.

The accusations are lurid – prosecutors say Combs ran a 20-year sex trafficking scheme involving sordid sex parties– and these details could provoke strong reactions, making it even harder to find jurors who can set aside preconceptions and focus on the evidence.

Selecting a fair jury in high-profile cases poses significant challenges due to the defendant’s celebrity status, extensive pretrial publicity, and the explosive nature of the allegations. Jury selection, known as voir dire, is intended to uncover biases or preconceived notions jurors might hold, but in cases involving a celebrity, this becomes uniquely difficult.