Charlotte Criminal Defense Lawyers

December 3, 2025

Why Specific Intent Matters in North Carolina Attempt Crimes

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 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.

May 28, 2025

After a Dismissal: What Happens If You’re Charged With a Sex Offense But Not Convicted in North Carolina?

by Carolina Attorneys

Being charged with a sex offense in North Carolina, regardless of whether there is a dismissal, can have long-term legal and personal consequences. While the formal legal obligations that apply after a conviction, such as sex offender registration or satellite-based monitoring, do not automatically attach to a pending charge, there are circumstances in which an arrest or charge alone can affect a defendant’s rights, freedom, and access to legal relief.

This post examines what happens when someone is charged with a registrable sex offense in North Carolina but is not convicted at trial or the state files a voluntary dismissal. It explains the legal significance of the charge, how it may affect pretrial release and eligibility for things like firearm rights restoration, expunction, or registration termination. It also addresses the broader consequences that can arise even when a charge is later dismissed or results in acquittal.

If you’ve been charged with a serious offense in Mecklenburg, Union, Gaston, Iredell, or Lincoln County and need to understand what that might mean for your future, call or TEXT Powers Law Firm at 704-342-4357 to see whether we’re available to assist.

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 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.