Marijuana vs. Hemp

In any marijuana vs hemp drug prosecution, the State bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the substance marijuana-vs-hemp-testing 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 MARIJUANA-IDENTIFICATION-IN-COURT 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.

Articles Tagged with Marijuana vs. Hemp

Sufficiency of Evidence – Marijuana vs Hemp

Marijuana Identification in North Carolina: State v. Ruffin and Rule 702 Expert Testimony