Skip to main content

State v. Brown

Citations

  • 2024 Ohio 749

Syllabus

Criminal law—Robbery—Court of appeals erred in determining that evidence was insufficient to support trial court's conclusion that appellee committed a theft offense and that in doing so, he threatened to inflict physical harm on two different people—R.C. 2911.02(A) (defining robbery as threatening to inflict physical harm on another while committing a theft offense) does not require that theft victim be person who was threatened—A defendant may not assert error on appeal based on late disclosure of evidence alleged to be materially exculpatory that was not disclosed until trial unless defendant raised the issue in trial court by requesting continuance or mistrial or by some other means— Appellee forfeited claim that he was entitled to new trial based on state's purported violation of Brady v. Maryland—Court of appeals' judgment reversed and cause remanded for court of appeals to consider appellee's remaining assignments of error.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • defining both materiality and prejudice as “a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed, the result of the 12 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS proceeding would have been different”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: DeWine, J.

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

15 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

32 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.