Powers Law Firm

April 26, 2025

The Real Cost of a Criminal Conviction in North Carolina

A criminal conviction in North Carolina brings consequences that extend well beyond the sentence imposed by the court. Whether the offense is classified as a 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.

These long-term consequences are sometimes referred to as “collateral consequences,” but that term can understate how directly they affect everyday life. The legal process may end with a sentence, but the consequences of a conviction often continue well beyond the courtroom. Understanding those effects is important for anyone facing criminal charges, whether that involves a DUI charge in Mecklenburg or allegations of a crime like theft, such as larceny.

At Powers Law Firm, we provide thoughtful and compassionate legal representation to clients facing impaired driving charges and serious felony allegations in the Charlotte metro area, including Mecklenburg, Iredell, Union, Gaston, Lincoln, and Rowan counties. To find out if we’re available to assist with your case, call 704-342-4357 to schedule a confidential consultation.

April 21, 2025

Plea Bargains in North Carolina

by Carolina Attorneys

A substantial number of criminal charges in North Carolina are resolved through plea bargains and negotiated pleas, rather than a jury trial. That doesn’t mean 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.

Plea bargains are widely used, deeply embedded in legal practice, and frequently misunderstood. If you’re facing charges, understanding how plea bargains work — and why they exist — can help you make informed decisions with your lawyer.

The Art of Plea Negotiations & Plea Bargains

April 17, 2025

What Happens After a Sex Offender Conviction in North Carolina?

by Carolina Attorneys

A conviction for some sex offense charges in North Carolina brings long-term consequences that go far beyond jail time or probation. While any criminal conviction may affect 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.

These restrictions affect not only the person’s liberty but also their ability to live, work, and interact with others in ordinary ways. Some consequences arise from the sex offender registration statutes themselves, while others flow from supervision conditions, civil laws, or agency policies tied to registration status.

This post outlines what happens after a conviction for an offense subject to registration under North Carolina’s sex offender laws. It explains who must register, what registration involves, how long it lasts, and what limitations follow. It also reviews additional restrictions and monitoring requirements imposed after release, as well as the legal framework behind them.

April 12, 2025

Waiver of Counsel in North Carolina

by Carolina Attorneys

Waiver of Counsel: Legal Framework and Standard of Review

Criminal defendants have a fundamental right to the assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I of the North Carolina Constitution. A defendant also has the right to proceed without counsel and represent himself or herself, but such waiver of counsel must be made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. North Carolina law requires trial courts to conduct a thorough inquiry before accepting a waiver of the right to counsel.

This inquiry is codified in N.C.G.S. § 15A-1242, which provides that a judge may allow a defendant to proceed pro se only after confirming that the defendant:

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 5, 2025

Sexual Discrimination During Jury Selection

by Carolina Attorneys

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:

Preservation of Constitutional Jury-Selection Claims

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.

March 29, 2025

Marijuana or Hemp | The 0.3% THC Threshold in NC Law

by Carolina Attorneys

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.

March 26, 2025

Sufficiency of Evidence – Marijuana vs Hemp

by Carolina Attorneys

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.

March 15, 2025

The Role of Expert Testimony in North Carolina DWI Cases

by Carolina Attorneys

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.