STATE OF LOUISIANA v. REGINALD PYE JR (2026)

The State of Louisiana, through the Orleans Parish District Attorney, Jason R. Williams (“the State”), seeks supervisory review of the district court's May 4, 2026 ruling excluding video evidence from the interior of the taxicab in which the charged offenses allegedly occurred. The State contends that the district court abused its discretion because the State did not receive the video until April 28, 2026, immediately tendered it to defense counsel, and promptly filed a supplemental inventory of discovery. Defendant, Reginald Pye (“Defendant”), opposes the writ application and alleges that the State was on notice of the video much earlier because the police report referenced the cab's interior camera system.

The district court excluded the video after finding that the State failed to comply with multiple discovery deadlines. The district court noted that Defendant was arrested on March 31, 2025, that the police report referenced the existence of video footage, that discovery deadlines were set early in the proceedings, and that the State had received prior extensions, including a continuance on March 9, 2026, to obtain the footage. The district court further found that the State did not obtain the video until April 28, 2026, did not seek an additional extension, and tendered the video after the court-imposed deadline and less than ten days before the May 4, 2026 trial setting. On that basis, the district court granted Defendant's motion to strike the video as untimely disclosed.

For the following reasons, we grant the writ, reverse the district court's ruling, and remand.

Defendant is charged with simple battery, simple assault, and theft valued at less than one thousand dollars. The charges arise from an alleged altercation between Defendant and Willie Smith, a United Cab driver, on March 31, 2025.

Trial was initially set for March 9, 2026. On March 4, 2026, during a pretrial conference with the victim, the prosecutor first learned that video footage from the interior of the cab might exist and might be in the possession of the Ground Transportation Bureau's Inspection Station. The State notified the district court of the possible video, requested a continuance when the video had not yet been received, and later issued a subpoena duces tecum. On April 24, 2026, the State again advised the district court that it still had not received the video. On April 28, 2026, the State received the video, tendered it to defense counsel the same day, and filed a supplemental inventory of discovery. On May 4, 2026, the district court excluded the video because it was tendered after the court-imposed discovery cutoff date.

A trial court's ruling excluding evidence as a discovery sanction is reviewed for abuse of discretion. State v. Taylor, 98-2243, p. 4 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/26/00), 759 So.2d 112, 114 (citation omitted). Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 729.3 imposes a continuing duty to disclose additional evidence discovered before or during trial. Article 729.5 gives the district court discretion to fashion an appropriate remedy for discovery issues, including additional discovery, a continuance, or exclusion of the evidence.

The district court abused its discretion in excluding the video. The record before this Court reflects that the State did not possess the video before April 28, 2026, and disclosed it to the defense on the day it was received. The State could not tender evidence it did not yet possess. When the video came into the State's possession, the State complied with its continuing duty of disclosure by promptly notifying the defense and the district court.

The fact that the video was produced after the district court's discovery cutoff date did not, by itself, justify exclusion. The Code contemplates continuing disclosure before and during trial. See La. C.Cr.P. art. 729.3. The Louisiana Supreme Court has also recognized that the Code does not authorize an order closing discovery. State v. Bickham, 23-00541 (La. 5/31/23), 361 So.3d 450.

Nor does the district court's finding that the State was aware of the video's existence earlier require exclusion on this record. That finding supports the district court's concern that the disclosure was untimely, but the sanction still must be proportionate to the prejudice shown. The video was tendered before trial on April 28, 2026, trial did not proceed on May 4, 2026, and the district court had lesser remedies available under La. C.Cr.P. art. 729.5 to address any prejudice caused by the late disclosure. Because the video allegedly depicts the charged incident itself, and because the record does not show bad faith, deliberate concealment, or incurable prejudice, excluding the evidence was an abuse of discretion.

For these reasons, the State's writ application is granted. The district court's May 4, 2026 ruling excluding the taxicab video evidence is reversed. This matter is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

WRIT GRANTED, REVERSED, AND REMANDED

Judge Joy Cossich Lobrano