State v. Philip Davis

This Source Verification Page documents the criminal case of State v. Philip Davis, a Buncombe County capital prosecution referenced in Statement of Facts D of the Supplemental Motion. Because the underlying court filings were not available for independent public review, this page relies upon contemporaneous reporting by the Asheville Citizen-Times to verify the disposition of the case and provide additional context regarding the destruction of jury-selection notes, juror questionnaires, and other prosecutorial records. According to the cited reporting, the parties ultimately agreed that Davis would receive a new sentencing hearing. The case is cited in connection with allegations concerning Batson litigation, record preservation, jury-selection practices, and post-conviction review within the Buncombe County District Attorney's Office.

Related SMAR Citation

“[State v. Davis, Buncombe County Superior Court No. CRS 57616-16]”
“[See State v. Phillip Davis, Joint Brief of the Parties, at 13].”

Source Name

State v. Philip Davis

Citation

Buncombe County Superior Court No. 97 CRS 57616-16

Publication

Asheville Citizen-Times

Publication Date

November 3, 2016

Verification Source

Asheville Citizen-Times (Tonya Maxwell)

Source Location

Asheville Citizen-Times

Highlighted Pages

1–3, 6 (Page 3 – Top Gun II reference)

Referenced in the Supplemental Motion

Page 29, Paragraph 51

Verification Notes

The Joint Brief of the Parties in State v. Philip Davis was not publicly accessible at the time this Source Verification Page was prepared. Verification of the case, the agreement granting a new sentencing hearing, and related proceedings relies upon contemporaneous reporting by the Asheville Citizen-Times and publicly available court information. Should the original court filings become available, they will be added to this page.

Cited to Support

Lyle C. May alleges that prosecutorial misconduct within the Buncombe County District Attorney's Office extended beyond his own case and affected other capital prosecutions. May cites State v. Davis to support his claim that evidence relevant to post-conviction review was intentionally destroyed by the District Attorney's Office. Specifically, May relies upon findings and representations made in the Davis proceedings that jury-selection notes and juror questionnaires were purposefully destroyed, thereby impairing the defendant's ability to litigate claims arising from his capital sentencing proceedings. May further cites the Davis proceedings to support his allegation that the destruction or unavailability of jury-selection materials was not isolated to a single case and that similar record-preservation issues arose in other Buncombe County capital prosecutions. According to the cited reporting, the loss of those materials became a significant issue during post-conviction review and contributed to the agreement granting Davis a new sentencing hearing.

Supporting Documents

Original Article

Link to the original article.

View Website →

Highlighted Research Copy

Working research copy containing the highlighted passages cited in the Supplemental Motion.

View PDF →