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.
The North Carolina Court of Appeals’ recent decision in State v. Ruffin, ___ N.C. App. ___ (Mar. 5, 2025), provides 
guidance on marijuana identification in the post-hemp era. The defendant in Ruffin was convicted of multiple drug offenses, including the sale and delivery of marijuana, arising from a controlled buy in 2021.
On appeal, the accused challenged the identification of the seized plant material as marijuana (arguing it could have been legal hemp), the admissibility of both lay and expert testimony under the North Carolina Rules of Evidence, the sufficiency of the evidence to distinguish marijuana from hemp, the trial court’s jury instructions, and several aspects of his sentencing
The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences. This article analyzes Ruffin and its implications for North Carolina law, with specific reference to Rule 702 Testimony by Expert Witnesses.
As hip-hop mogul Sean “P. Diddy” Combs heads to trial on federal sex trafficking charges, a critical question looms: can he get an 
impartial jury despite his fame and the salacious allegations? This is no ordinary case – nearly everyone has heard of P. Diddy. The worry is that half the jury pool could be star-struck fans while the other half have already judged him guilty based on headlines.
The accusations are lurid – prosecutors say Combs ran a 20-year sex trafficking scheme involving sordid sex parties– and these details could provoke strong reactions, making it even harder to find jurors who can set aside preconceptions and focus on the evidence.
Selecting a fair jury in high-profile cases poses significant challenges due to the defendant’s celebrity status, extensive pretrial publicity, and the explosive nature of the allegations. Jury selection, known as voir dire, is intended to uncover biases or preconceived notions jurors might hold, but in cases involving a celebrity, this becomes uniquely difficult.
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.
Refusing a breath test in North Carolina triggers a separate, civil administrative legal process known as a willful refusal hearing. Even while a criminal DWI charge is pending in criminal court, the 
Department of Transportation – Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) may move forward with revoking your license for failing to submit to breath and/or blood testing.
At the center of willful refusal proceeding is a hearing officer who effectively handles both the role of prosecutor—by eliciting evidence—and the role of judge—by deciding if your license will be revoked.
The stakes can be significant because a loss at the DMV hearing level may lead to a revocation lasting well beyond any criminal charge, even if the underlying DWI charge is cleared by dismissal or a not guilty verdict after a trial.
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.
Carolina Criminal Defense & DUI Lawyer Updates
