In re P.K.
2019 Ohio 2311
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Juvenile complaint (Nov 5, 2018) alleged P.K. committed obstructing official business by resisting officers and removing hand from handcuffs; technical denial entered at arraignment.
- Defense requested discovery under Juv.R. 24; prosecutor responded with a police report and officer names but did not provide body‑worn camera (BWC) video.
- Prosecutor's office informed defense there was no video; defense later learned BWC recordings existed and obtained them via public‑records request around Jan 30, 2019 (14 days before trial).
- Defense moved to dismiss or for sanctions (Feb 11, 2019), alleging a Brady violation for suppression of evidence; prosecutor opposed, arguing no prejudice or exculpatory value.
- Trial court denied dismissal but ordered sanctions: prosecutor to pay defense attorney fees for locating the videos and for motion work, finding the evidence had been suppressed (not willfully) but the defense suffered no prejudice because discovery occurred before trial.
- Appellant appealed the trial court’s finding that no Brady violation occurred; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether nondisclosure of BWC recordings by prosecutor violated Brady | Prosecutor suppressed existing video evidence, denying due process; dismissal warranted | Any failure was not willful; videos were discovered before trial and were not material or prejudicial | No Brady violation; no prejudice because defense obtained videos 14 days before trial and could prepare |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose evidence favorable to accused when material to guilt or punishment)
- Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449 (2009) (defines materiality: reasonable probability that disclosure would change outcome)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (reasonable probability standard and effect on confidence in outcome)
- United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976) (Brady covers information known to prosecution but unknown to defense; distinguishes timing issues)
- State v. Wickline, 50 Ohio St.3d 114 (1990) (Ohio Supreme Court: nondisclosure may be remedied by trial court orders and requires showing of prejudice to be reversible)