State v. Bullitt, 2023 Ohio 1899

In July 2012 officers executed an arrest warrant at codefendant Jerael Dues’s Richmond Heights apartment; Detective Vargo testified he saw Deaunte Bullitt throw a box off Dues’s balcony, and drugs and cash were recovered outside and inside the unit.
Bullitt was convicted (drug trafficking with major-drug-offender, possession, tampering, etc.) and his convictions were affirmed on direct appeal and in multiple postconviction proceedings.
In May–June 2022 Bullitt obtained Richmond Heights Police Department reports he says were not produced at trial: a June 8, 2012 incident report documenting an anonymous complaint of drug activity tied to Dues, and a July 19, 2012 report describing drugs found inside the apartment.
Bullitt moved for leave to file a delayed motion for new trial based on newly discovered/suppressed evidence, arguing the June report could impeach officers and show motive to fabricate the balcony/throwing narrative.
The trial court denied leave; the court of appeals affirmed, holding the withheld June report was not Brady material because it neither contradicted officer testimony nor was sufficiently exculpatory or impeaching to undermine confidence in the verdict.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Bullitt)	Held
Whether the undisclosed June 8, 2012 RHPD incident report was Brady material and warranted leave to file a delayed new-trial motion	The June report was not favorable/ material Brady evidence; nondisclosure did not create a reasonable probability of a different outcome	The June report (prior complaint about Dues) would impeach officers, show motive to fabricate, and thus is newly discovered/suppressed Brady evidence	Denied — the report did not contradict testimony, was not exculpatory or sufficiently impeaching, and would not undermine confidence in the verdict

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecution must disclose materially favorable evidence)
Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (defines Brady elements: favorable, suppressed, material)
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (suppressed evidence must be viewed in context to determine whether it undermines confidence in the verdict)
State v. Hatton, 169 Ohio St.3d 446 (suppressed evidence that creates a substantial hole in state’s theory can justify leave to file new-trial motion)
State v. Osie, 140 Ohio St.3d 131 (materiality under Brady pertains to guilt or innocence, not trial preparation)
United States v. Bencs, 28 F.3d 555 (materiality focuses on guilt or innocence)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse-of-discretion standard explained)
State v. McNeal, 169 Ohio St.3d 47 (procedural standard for showing unavoidable prevention in discovering evidence for delayed new-trial motions)