Repository Collection 03
State v. Jonathon Hoffman
CASE ENTRY
Last Revised • July 11, 2026
This Source Verification Page documents the National Registry of Exonerations case profile for State v. Jonathon Hoffman, cited in Claim III of the Supplemental Motion. The case is referenced as an example of a North Carolina conviction later vacated following the prosecution's failure to disclose material impeachment evidence concerning a key witness. It is included to illustrate comparable instances in which withheld evidence affecting witness credibility resulted in post-conviction relief.
Related SMAR Citation
“State v. Jonathan Hoffman: Union Co. Police informant deals concealed; prosecutors withheld impeachment and witness reliability information, led to vacatur.”
Case Name
State v. Jonathon Hoffman
Location
Union County, North Carolina
Convicted
1996
Exonerated
2007
Verification Source
The National Registry of Exonerations
Source Location
The National Registry of Exonerations
Highlighted Pages
1 - 2
Referenced in the Supplemental Motion
Page 59, Paragraph 121
Source Status
✔ Obtained and reviewed.
✔ Relevant passages highlighted.
✔ Publicly available source.
✔ Included within the Source Verification Archive.
Cited to Support
Lyle C. May alleges that North Carolina courts have granted post-conviction relief where prosecutors failed to disclose material impeachment evidence concerning key prosecution witnesses. The Jonathon Hoffman case is cited as an example in which prosecutors concealed benefits provided to a principal witness, including immunity from federal prosecution and financial compensation, thereby depriving the defense of material impeachment evidence affecting witness credibility. May relies upon Hoffman to illustrate that the concealment of impeachment evidence has resulted in vacated convictions and subsequent exonerations in North Carolina. May cites this authority in support of his request for disclosure of evidence relating to his Buncombe County case arising from the July 1997 murders in Asheville, North Carolina.
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 Claim III
Continue browsing the sources cited throughout Claim III.
Return to Source Verification Archive
Return to the main Source Verification Archive and explore additional sections of the Supplemental Motion.