Carolina Criminal Defense & DUI Lawyer UpdatesNorth Carolina Rule 404(b) impeachment evidence can become a central issue in a DWI or fleeing to elude trial when a defendant testifies and the State argues that a separate incident contradicts that testimony. The Court of Appeals’ June 17, 2026 opinion in State v. Moore, No. COA25-1049, is a reminder that the decision to testify does not merely give the jury the defendant’s side of the story. It also creates room for cross-examination by the prosecutor.
TL;DR | Moore involves a trial for fleeing to elude arrest with a motor vehicle, reckless driving to endanger, speeding, operating a motor vehicle without a license, driving while impaired, and displaying an expired registration plate. The defendant testified that he was not trying to flee from law enforcement during the charged event. He said he was driving to safety because he did not want to stop on a back road without witnesses, lights, cameras, or other visible protections. That testimony created the problem. During cross-examination, the State asked whether he would have pulled over if the encounter had happened in a city with more lights and people around. The defendant answered that he would have pulled over. The prosecutor then asked the trial judge for permission to question him about a different police encounter than the incident being tried. According to the State, that separate encounter went to credibility because it allegedly involved conduct that could be viewed as evading law enforcement even though it happened in the city. The trial court allowed the questioning but barred the State from asking about any charges from the 2024 event. The jury heard the defendant’s account of the separate encounter. The jury did not hear about charges from that event. The defendant was convicted, appealed, and argued that the questioning violated Rule 404(b) and Rule 403. The Court of Appeals found no error.
to ask, “Can I get my DWI charges reduced or amended to something like reckless driving?”