N.C. Gen. Stat. » Chapter 90
NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-113.1 (2026)

Burden of proof; liabilities

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 90 CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) It shall not be necessary for the State to negate any exemption or exception set forth in this Article in any complaint, information, indictment, or other pleading or in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding under this Article, and the burden of proof of any such exemption or exception shall be upon the person claiming its benefit.

(b) In the absence of proof that a person is the duly authorized holder of an appropriate registration or order form issued under this  Article, he shall be presumed not to be the holder of such registration or form, and the burden of proof shall be upon him to rebut such presumption.

(c) No liability shall be imposed by virtue of this Article upon any duly authorized officer, engaged in the lawful enforcement of this Article. (1971, c. 919, s. 1.)

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1972–2026 · leading case: State v. Beam, 688 S.E.2d 40 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Beam, 688 S.E.2d 40 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 8× “§ 90-95 , defendant was required to prove an exemption from prosecution under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-113.1 (a). Defendant’s evidence did not establish as a matter of law that she was legally authorized to possess the Lortab tablets.”
State v. McNeil, 266 S.E.2d 824 (N.C. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 6× “The manufacture, possession, sale or delivery of phen-metrazine is unlawful unless and until it is authorized under an appropriate section of the Act.”
State v. Stanley, 215 S.E.2d 589 (N.C. 1975). “Our conclusion in this case is buttressed by G.S. 90-113.1 (c), which provides that no liability for violation of the Controlled Substances Act shall be imposed upon any duly authorized officer engaged in the lawful enforcement of its provisions.”
State v. Richardson, 208 S.E.2d 274 (N.C. Ct. App. 1974). · cites it 2× “” G.S. 90-113.1 (a) provides: “It shall not be necessary for the State to negate any exemption or exception set forth in this Article in any complaint, information, indictment, or other pleading or in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding under this Article, and the burden of…”
State v. Richardson, 208 S.E.2d 274 (N.C. Ct. App. 1974). · cites it 4× “" G.S. § 90-113.1(a) provides: "It shall not be necessary for the State to negate any exemption or exception set forth in this Article in any complaint, information, indictment, or other pleading or in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding under this Article, and the burden of…”
State v. Palmer (N.C. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 15× “Our plain reading of Chapter 90 reveals lawful possession of a controlled substance is not an element of the statute but rather an exception, per N.C.G.S. § 90-113.1(a). STATE V. PALMER Opinion of the Court Defendant requested lawful possession be instructed as an element rather…”
State v. Palmer (N.C. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 15× “Our plain reading of Chapter 90 reveals lawful possession of a controlled substance is not an element of the statute but rather an exception, per N.C.G.S. § 90-113.1(a). STATE V. PALMER Opinion of the Court Defendant requested lawful possession be instructed as an element rather…”
State v. Banks (N.C. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 3× “The State was not required to negate the ultimate user exemption in this case, see N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-113.1 (a); the State was only required to present substantial evidence of each essential element of the offense charged and of Defendant being the perpetrator of the offense.”
State v. Best, 229 S.E.2d 581 (N.C. Ct. App. 1976). “G.S. 90-113.1. He argues, nevertheless, that to allow conduct otherwise proscribed by the statute only if it is by a practitioner “within the normal course of professional practice” necessarily requires a finding of unconstitutionality.”
State v. Williams, 188 S.E.2d 717 (N.C. Ct. App. 1972). · cites it 3× “Under G.S. 90-113.1(1), prior to amendment effective 1 January 1972, it was provided in pertinent part: “The term ‘barbiturate drug’ means: a.”
State v. Teague (N.C. Ct. App. 2022). “§ 90-113.1(a). The burden of proving that a controlled substance is, in fact, lawfully possessed is borne by the defendant.”
State v. Teague (N.C. Ct. App. 2022). “§ 90-113.1(a). The burden of proving that a controlled substance is, in fact, lawfully possessed is borne by the defendant.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-113.1(1): 1 case
State v. Williams, 188 S.E.2d 717 (N.C. Ct. App. 1972). “Under G.S. 90-113.1(1), prior to amendment effective 1 January 1972, it was provided in pertinent part: “The term ‘barbiturate drug’ means: a.”
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-113.1(a): 8 cases
State v. McNeil, 266 S.E.2d 824 (N.C. Ct. App. 1980). “The manufacture, possession, sale or delivery of phen-metrazine is unlawful unless and until it is authorized under an appropriate section of the Act.”
State v. Richardson, 208 S.E.2d 274 (N.C. Ct. App. 1974). “" G.S. § 90-113.1(a) provides: "It shall not be necessary for the State to negate any exemption or exception set forth in this Article in any complaint, information, indictment, or other pleading or in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding under this Article, and the burden of…”
State v. Palmer (N.C. Ct. App. 2020). “Our plain reading of Chapter 90 reveals lawful possession of a controlled substance is not an element of the statute but rather an exception, per N.C.G.S. § 90-113.1(a). STATE V. PALMER Opinion of the Court Defendant requested lawful possession be instructed as an element rather…”
State v. Palmer (N.C. Ct. App. 2020). “Our plain reading of Chapter 90 reveals lawful possession of a controlled substance is not an element of the statute but rather an exception, per N.C.G.S. § 90-113.1(a). STATE V. PALMER Opinion of the Court Defendant requested lawful possession be instructed as an element rather…”
State v. Teague (N.C. Ct. App. 2022). “§ 90-113.1(a). The burden of proving that a controlled substance is, in fact, lawfully possessed is borne by the defendant.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.