When a fatal collision occurs on North Carolina’s roads, the legal system doesn’t apply a one-size-fits-all response. In cases involving loss of life, prosecutors may consider
a range of charges depending on the circumstances. Two of the most serious offenses are Felony Death by Vehicle and Second-Degree Murder.
While both carry the weight of a felony conviction and serious sentencing exposure, they are grounded in different legal theories and involve distinct statutory frameworks.
This article examines how these charges are defined under North Carolina law, what legal elements separate them, and why the difference matters—not just to lawyers and judges, but to anyone trying to understand how the state treats fatal driving cases.
Carolina Criminal Defense & DUI Lawyer Updates













misdemeanor or a felony, the effects are not limited to fines, probation, or incarceration. A conviction can create long-term barriers that may affect your ability to find housing, secure employment, continue your education, or avoid harsher penalties if you’re ever charged again.
state’s authorization of the firing squad — a method not used in decades in the United States — has raised new legal and policy questions that extend well beyond the prison walls.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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