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.
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.
Carolina?Quick Take: North Carolina v. Branham shows that guilty pleas in North Carolina do not automatically preserve appellate rights, but certiorari may sometimes fill the gap.
The Court of Appeals held no statutory right existed to appeal a denied immunity motion after a guilty plea.
I’d already had a rough day when I got the text from my wife sharing Fergie passed. 
“Dang,” was the only thing I could respond.
I was without words.
Intermittent fasting has gained popularity for a range of personal and medical reasons, from weight management and metabolic 
health to religious observance and athletic discipline. While it may offer certain physiological benefits, fasting also triggers changes in the body’s metabolic pathways that may complicate the interpretation of forensic alcohol testing in DWI cases.
This can become relevant in North Carolina, where the outcome of driving while impaired charges hinge on the reliability of breath or blood alcohol test results.
Defense attorneys, prosecutors, judges, and forensic experts are occasionally called to consider whether intermittent fasting affects the body’s internal chemistry and the resulting reported BAC.
If you’re facing charges in North Carolina, there’s a good chance your case will not be resolved on the first court date, and therefore, 
you will need a continuance. It might be continued again, and again after that. Whether you’re charged with DWI in Mecklenburg County or facing a felony in Union County, continuances are part of the system.
Some clients ask, “Why is my case taking so long?” not realizing that continuances often help the defense more than they help the State. They wonder if the judge is overlooking something or if the system just doesn’t care. Some assume a continuance means something is wrong. In reality, it’s usually the opposite.
In criminal and DWI courtrooms across North Carolina, continuances are rarely about delay for its own sake. They result from crowded dockets, incomplete discovery, unavailable officers or witnesses, scheduling conflicts, or system failures that no one in the courtroom controls.
For years, the Drug Recognition Evaluator (DRE) protocol has relied on a structured set of physical observations to evaluate suspected drug impairment. Among these, the presence of eyelid tremor has been taught as a supposed sign of recent cannabis use. In practice, that means law enforcement officers conducting roadside evaluations or testifying in court may point to an eyelid tremor as evidence supporting probable cause or impairment. But as a recent study published in Clinical Toxicology makes clear, the scientific foundation for this assumption is, at best, unproven. At worst, it is affirmatively misleading.
In a 2024 peer-reviewed clinical research article by George Sam Wang and colleagues, the authors conducted a carefully controlled, blinded study to evaluate whether eyelid tremor could reliably and accurately be identified as a marker of recent cannabis use. The conclusion was clear. Eyelid tremor does not correlate with cannabis ingestion in a scientifically defensible way. Inter-rater reliability was poor to moderate. Specificity was dismal. And perhaps most importantly for DWI defense lawyers, the entire protocol used by officers to “spot” this supposed indicator would not come close to passing scientific muster in any peer-reviewed laboratory setting.
Carolina Criminal Defense & DUI Lawyer Updates