Repository Collection 03
State v. McDowell
CASE ENTRY
Last Revised • July 10, 2026
This Source Verification Page documents the North Carolina Supreme Court's decision in State v. McDowell, cited in Claim II of the Supplemental Motion. The opinion discusses the constitutional materiality standard governing undisclosed favorable evidence and explains when nondisclosure requires a new trial because it likely would have created a reasonable doubt that otherwise did not exist.
Related SMAR Citation
“[State v. McDowell, 310 S.E. 2d 304 (N.C. 1984)]”
Case Name
State v. McDowell
Citation
310 S.E. 2d 304 (N.C. 1984)
Date
January 10, 1984
Verification Source
Official United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit opinion
Source Location
North Carolina Supreme Court opinion
Highlighted Pages
8, 10
Referenced in the Supplemental Motion
Page 56 - 57, Paragraph: 118
✔ Original Court Order obtained and reviewed.
✔ Relevant passages highlighted.
✔ Publicly available source
✔ Included within the Source Verification Archive
May's allegation that when the prosecution fails to disclose favorable evidence that was not
specifically requested by the defense, the proper materiality standard is whether the undisclosed
evidence would likely have created a reasonable doubt in the jury's mind that did not otherwise
exist when considered alongside all of the other evidence presented at trial. If so, due process
requires a new trial. May cites State v. McDowell to support his claim that the materiality of
suppressed evidence depends upon its probable effect on the jury's verdict, not upon whether the
defense independently requested the evidence or could have attempted to locate the witnesses.
May relies upon this authority to support his argument that testimony and information relating to
Darrell Godfrey and other witnesses would likely have created reasonable doubt had it been
disclosed and presented to the jury
Link to the original article.
Working research copy containing the highlighted passages cited in the Supplemental Motion.
Continue browsing the sources cited throughout Claim II.
Return to the main Source Verification Archive and explore additional sections of the Supplemental Motion.
Source Status
Cited to Support
Supporting Documents
Original Article
Highlighted Research Copy
Continue Your Research
Return to Claim II
Return to Source Verification Archive