Articles Tagged with bill powers attorney

Misdemeanor death by vehicle in North Carolina is a criminal charge, not a traffic ticket. Under N.C.G.S. 20-141.4(a2), the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a specific traffic law was violated and that the violation was a proximate cause of another person’s death. The charge does not require intent to harm. It does not require impaired driving or recklessness. It requires proof of a traffic violation and proof that the violation caused a fatality. The consequences are serious, lasting, and begin the moment the charge is filed.

1. Misdemeanor Death by Vehicle | Statutory Offense in North Carolina

North Carolina General Statute 20-141.4(a2) defines misdemeanor death by vehicle as an offense with three elements. First, the person was engaged in the violation of any State law or local ordinance applying to the operation or use of a vehicle or to the regulation of traffic. Second, that violation was a proximate cause of the death of another person. Third, the death was unintentional. Every element must be present, and the State must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt.

Let me start by saying this. I love lawyers. I am one. I am a former president of the North Carolina Advocates for Justice (NCAJ), an association of criminal defense, personal injury, and family law lawyers.

Some of my best friends are lawyers. The profession as a whole is comprised of noble, hard-working professionals dedicated to justice, due process, and helping others.

AND if you ever want to truly test your patience, try defending an attorney when the tables are turned, and the lawyer becomes the defendant.

The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees defendants charged with a crime the right to legal counsel. The North Carolina State Constitution reinforces that protection in Article I, Section 23 Declaration of Rights. A lot of folks facing a criminal allegation assume that legal right is absolute. As long as they want an attorney, the Court must provide one. That’s not always the case. Indeed, there are things you can do to lose your right to a lawyer.

TL;DRThe February 2026 NC Court of Appeals Decision, State v. Webber, upheld a trial judge’s decision to strip a defendant of the right to counsel and force them to stand trial alone. The defendant had burned through four appointed attorneys over several years, privately retained a fifth, refused court-appointed counsel, and walked into the courtroom on the day of trial without a lawyer. The Court found the defendant forfeited and otherwise waived the right to counsel through their conduct.

North Carolina courts look at the totality of circumstances before stripping a defendant of the right to counsel. No single act automatically triggers forfeiture. What follows are the seven patterns set forth in Webber that, alone or in combination, can cost a defendant their lawyer:

House Bill 307, known as Iryna’s Law, took effect December 1, 2025, and represents perhaps the most significant statutory reform to North Carolina’s pretrial release framework in decades. 

The legislation emerged in response to a high-profile homicide in Charlotte and puts into effect sweeping changes to bail procedures, pretrial detention authority, and judicial oversight of release decisions.

The law’s core mechanism is the creation of rebuttable presumptions against the release of defendants charged with specified violent offenses or who have prior violent-offense records. Presumptions shift the baseline inquiry from “why should this defendant be detained,” to “why should this defendant be released despite the statutory presumption.”

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.

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.

The Limits of Chemical Certainty: The Auto-Brewery Syndrome & DWI Charges 

Auto-Brewery Syndrome (ABS) remains a bit of a theoretical curiosity. It represents a measurable biochemical anomaly during which yeast or bacteria residing in the gastrointestinal tract convert carbohydrates into ethanol within the human body. North Carolina judge in a courtroom setting representing judicial evaluation of scientific evidence and credibility in DWI cases involving Auto-Brewery Syndrome

Though somewhat rare, it is medically documented, scientifically verifiable in some instances, and possibly legally consequential, at  least relative to DUI charges in North Carolina. 

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 North Carolina judge in courtroom reflecting on voluntary intoxication defense and the legal standard for criminal charges involving specific intent crimes 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.

Contact Information