Repository Collection 03
State v. May
354 N.C. 172, 552 S.E.2d 151 (2001)
CASE ENTRY
Last Revised • July 4, 2026
State v. May is the opinion issued by the North Carolina Supreme Court on direct appeal from the convictions and death sentences of Lyle C. May arising from the July 1997 murders in Asheville, North Carolina. The Court reviewed the issues raised on appeal and ultimately found no reversible error, affirming both the convictions and the sentences imposed by the trial court. This opinion is cited throughout the Supplemental Motion to document the procedural history of the case and the North Carolina Supreme Court's discussion of the forensic evidence presented at trial.
Related SMAR Citation
“[State v. May, 534 N.C. 172, 175, 552 S.E. 2d 151, 154 (2001)]”
Repository Note: The Supplemental Motion cites this opinion as "534 N.C. 172." The official North Carolina Supreme Court citation is State v. May, 354 N.C. 172, 552 S.E.2d 151 (2001).
Case Name
State v. May
Citation
354 N.C. 172, 552 S.E.2d 151 (2001)
Date
October 5, 2001
Verification Source
Case citation and partial opinion located through vLex.
Source Location
North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion
Highlighted Pages
N/A
Referenced in the Supplemental Motion
Page 8, Procedural History
Page 13, Paragraph 16
Page 14, Paragraph 19
Source Status
✔ Case existence and citation verified.
X Full opinion not obtained for inclusion
✔ Publicly available source
✔ Opinion is available through counsel, court records, legal databases, the case file, or a free trial through the website below
Cited to Support
Lyle C. May alleges that the North Carolina Supreme Court, in affirming his convictions and death sentences, characterized the forensic evidence presented at trial as significant evidence indicating guilt. May cites State v. May to identify the Court's reliance upon DNA evidence and other forensic evidence in affirming his convictions. May relies upon this portion of the opinion to support his claim that the Court's assessment was based upon forensic evidence and testimony that he alleges were misleadingly presented and insufficient, standing alone, to substantiate guilt.
Supporting Documents
Original Article
Link to the original article.
Highlighted Research Copy
Working research copy containing the highlighted passages cited in the Supplemental Motion.
Continue Your Research
Return to Statement of Facts A
Continue browsing the sources cited throughout Statement of Facts A.
Return to Source Verification Archive
Return to the main Source Verification Archive and explore additional sections of the Supplemental Motion.