2019 Ohio 2310
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Juvenile complaint alleged P.K. obstructed officers and resisted arrest after running from her grandmother’s home; arraignment entered a technical denial.
- Defense requested discovery under Juv.R. 24; prosecutor provided a police report and officer names but did not produce officer body‑camera videos.
- Prosecutor’s office initially told defense there were no videos; defense later obtained the bodycam recordings via public‑records request about 14 days before trial.
- Defense moved to dismiss or for sanctions under Brady for suppression of evidence; trial court denied dismissal but found the State had suppressed evidence (not willfully) and ordered the Guernsey County Prosecutor’s Office to pay defense counsel’s attorney fees for obtaining the videos and preparing the motion.
- State appealed, arguing the court lacked authority to award counsel fees as a remedy for a Brady/discovery violation or absent a contempt finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could order the prosecutor’s office to pay defense attorney fees as a sanction for failing to produce discovery/Brady material | Court lacked authority to award legal fees as a Brady remedy; only contempt could authorize fees and contempt was not found | Trial court has broad authority under Crim.R.16 and Juv.R.24 to impose sanctions, including “such other order as it deems just,” to remedy discovery failures | Court affirmed: under Juv.R.24/Crim.R.16 the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the prosecutor’s office to pay defense counsel’s fees as a just sanction for the discovery failure |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose materially favorable evidence)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (prosecutor must learn of favorable evidence known to others acting on government’s behalf)
- State v. Sanders, 92 Ohio St.3d 245 (2001) (Brady obligations extend to evidence known to police)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (standard for appellate review of abuse of discretion)
- In re Johnson, 61 Ohio App.3d 544 (1989) (juvenile court has discretion to impose discovery sanctions)