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:
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.
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.
In any marijuana vs hemp drug prosecution, the State bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the substance 
involved exceeds North Carolina’s legal THC limit of 0.3%, thereby making it illegal marijuana and not lawful hemp.
In the recent case State v. Ruffin, the North Carolina Court of Appeals addressed whether the State met this evidentiary burden, given that the expert witness conceded the material could possibly have been hemp. At trial, defense counsel moved to dismiss the marijuana charges under N.C.G.S. § 15-173 (motion for nonsuit for insufficient evidence) and § 15A-1227, arguing the State had not affirmatively proven the THC content.
The trial court denied the motions, and the Court of Appeals reviewed that ruling on appeal. In North Carolina, the test for sufficiency is whether there is substantial evidence of each essential element of the offens and of the defendant being the perpetrator.
Witnesses with specialized knowledge beyond that of a jury may in appropriate circumstances provide “expert testimony” in North Carolina. DWI (Driving While Impaired) charges in North Carolina regularly include evidence like breathalyzer results, blood
tests, and standardized field sobriety tests.
Given the scientific, forensic, and at times highly technical aspects of impaired driving cases, testimony may include qualification in court of expert witnesses and consideration of NC Rule of Evidence 702 (the rule governing experts and expert testimony). In some circumstances, the formal process of qualification is not required if the police officer is certified by the State of North Carolina as a DRE – Drug Recognition Expert. It can, frankly, prove to be a complicated area of law.
At Powers Law Firm, our attorneys understand the impact that credible experts can have in DWI trials and how critical it is to get reliable evidence before the finder of fact. That may entail both challenging the State’s attempts to tender a police officer as an “expert” and introducing a defense expert to counter the conclusion of the State’s witness and their expert testimony.
Prosecutors and defense attorneys regularly rely on expert witnesses to explain evidence that benefits from specialized knowledge. That may involve reviewing things like breath and blood testing procedures, DUI retrograde extrapolation, accident reconstruction, 
and medical conditions that could affect impairment assessments. This article examines the different types of experts used in North Carolina DWI cases, how courts determine whether their testimony is admissible under Rule 702, and what legal considerations apply when presenting expert evidence in court.
Understanding these issues can help if you’re facing a DWI charge. Expert testimony can play a significant role in North Carolina Driving While Impaired (DWI) cases, particularly when scientific, medical, or technical issues arise. Whether challenging the accuracy of a chemical test, questioning how an arrest was conducted, or providing insight into how a collision occurred, experts may help clarify complex evidence for a judge or jury.
Expert testimony can play a pivotal role in DUI charges in North Carolina. In part, that’s because allegations of impaired driving often involve complicated scientific, forensic evidence and 
technical procedures—such as chemical breath tests, blood alcohol analyses, and field sobriety testing—that lay jurors or even judges may not fully understand. An expert witness, properly qualified and admitted, can provide insight into such complex matters both for the prosecution and the defense.
This article examines the legal framework governing expert testimony in North Carolina DWI cases, the standards for admissibility, procedural requirements, and practical considerations for using expert witnesses. The discussion is intended for attorneys, legal professionals, and anyone seeking an in-depth understanding of how expert evidence is handled in DWI trials relative to the Daubert Standard and Rule 702.
DMV hearings for willful refusal revocations can feel like a costly, uphill battle—and truth be told, they often are.
When a law enforcement officer in North Carolina suspects impaired driving, they may conduct Standarized Field Sobriety Tests 
(SFSTs) to gauge whether enough evidence exists for an arrest or further chemical testing. Roadside dexterity tests—commonly the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test, the Walk-and-Turn test, and the One-Leg Stand test—remain a subject of debate. Questions arise about whether these tests are truly “standardized,” whether they reliably they measure impairment or are overly subjective, and how courts treat SFSTs as evidence.
This post explains some of the history of SFSTs, what each test entails, and why a DUI defense lawyer might challenge how an officer administered them. If you have been asked to perform SFST or want legal advice on DWI defenses, call or text the Powers Law Firm at 704-342-4357, or email Bill Powers at Bill@CarolinaAttorneys.com. An informed understanding of roadside tests may help in deciding how to respond during a traffic stop and in developing a defense strategy tailored to the specifics of your individual DUI charges.
DUI checkpoints ordinarily involve standardized patterns for stopping vehicles, as well as the use of portable breath tests (PBTs) and SFSTs – Standardized Field Sobriety Tests to assess possible alcohol consumption and appreciable impairment. North Carolina law allows law enforcement agencies to set up checking stations and roadblocks pursuant to N.C.G.S. 20-16.3A to check for things like
license violations and to enforce the “drunk driving” (impaired driving) laws. The process must follow certain constitutional and statutory guidelines to avoid arbitrary or discriminatory stops.
The following content is a general overview of how roadblocks and checking stations work, including the difference between a brief roadside stop and a more formal implied-consent procedure. If you have questions about a checkpoint stop in North Carolina—or wish to talk about a specific legal concern related to N.CG.S. 20-16.3A—call or text the Powers Law Firm at 704-342-4357, or email Bill Powers at Bill@CarolinaAttorneys.com.
North Carolina regulates portable breath tests (PBTs), sometimes referred to as the “breathalyzer,” through specific administrative rules and statutory provisions. Law enforcement officers regularly rely on alcohol screening devices to assess whether a driver has consumed alcohol and may be part of the “arrest decision” related to probable cause. To better ensure reliable readings, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) requires that approved devices be calibrated and verified for accuracy on a regular basis. Deviation from the rules is problematic at best and can, in some 
circumstances, raise doubt about whether a reported BAC reflects the true breath alcohol content.
This article explains how PBTs fit into North Carolina’s regulatory framework and why calibration rules are important. It references 10A NCAC 41B .0503 and related guidelines for monthly checks, breath simulator solutions, and ethanol gas canisters. If you have questions about calibration or how a screening test may apply to your legal matter, give us a call or text the Powers Law Firm at 704-342-4357. You may also email Bill Powers directly at Bill@CarolinaAttorneys.com.
Below is a synopsis of the sections covered in this article. Each entry links to a segment that discusses calibration and how law enforcement officers administer roadside breath tests in North Carolina.
Carolina Criminal Defense & DUI Lawyer Updates