State adjusts charges against county elections official accused of drugging girls’ ice cream

Prosecutors have adjusted felony charges against a North Carolina county elections official accused of putting drugs in ice cream intended for his step-granddaughter and a friend. The decision follows new lab testing in the case. 

2026-01-27

James Yokeley, who resigned from the Surry County Board of Elections in August after he was initially charged in the case, now faces two possible counts of felony “unlawful distribution of food or beverage” and one count of felony child abuse.  

Prosecutors initially charged Yokeley in August with child abuse, possession of a controlled substance and two counts of contaminating food with a controlled substance. Police in Wilmington had arrested Yokeley on allegations that he had put pills in ice cream purchased for his 16-year-old step-granddaughter and her 15-year-old friend. The pills, police said at the time, tested positive for MDMA and cocaine, which are controlled substances.

The drug charges were dropped last month after lab testing determined that the drugs alleged to have been found in the ice cream weren’t controlled substances under state law, court records show.

The new allegations point to a different substance, according to an indictment filed last week. Prosecutors now allege that Yokeley knowingly gave the girls food or beverages containing the sedative trazodone, which is commonly used to treat depression, anxiety and insomnia. Prosecutors said the drug can cause death, serious physical injury or serious pain in minors, and alleged that Yokeley attempted “to inflict serious physical injury” to the girls while they were under his supervision. 

A lawyer for Yokeley didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. Prosecutors in the case declined to provide additional comment, citing rules that prohibit them from publicly discussing pending cases or test results.

Wilmington Police spokesman Lt. Greg Willett said false positives can occur in field tests for a variety of reasons, much like rapid tests for viruses or infections at a doctor's office. 

“Case law has established that field tests, like those used in this case, can help establish probable cause for an arrest/charge,” he said Tuesday in an email to WRAL. “Field tests alone are not enough for a conviction. Lab tests are admissible in court and are considered the standard for evidentiary use.”