Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2907 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.41 (2026)

Person charged with subsequent sexual offense - setting of bail

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1987–2024 · leading case: State v. Self, 564 N.E.2d 446 (Ohio 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Self, 564 N.E.2d 446 (Ohio 1990). · cites it 19× “4-1 (A) Videotaped Deposition Procedure R.C. 2907.41, enacted in 1986, is intended to protect child sexual abuse victims from traumatization in an “intimidating courtroom atmosphere” while preserving the right of the accused to confront the witnesses against him.”
State v. Sibert, 648 N.E.2d 861 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 14× “” Division (E) of R.C. 2907.41 provides: “For purposes of divisions (C) and (D) of this section, a judge may order the testimony of a child victim to be taken outside the room in which the proceeding is being conducted if the judge determines that the child victim is unavailable…”
Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990). · cites it 4× “§ 30-9-17 (1984); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 2907.41 (A), (B), (D), (E) (1987); Okla.”
State v. Payton, 696 N.E.2d 240 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 6× “On June 30, 1993, the prosecution filed a motion to videotape Amanda’s testimony pursuant to R.C. 2907.41. After conducting a hearing on July 26, 1993 on the issue of videotaping Amanda’s testimony, the trial court granted the prosecution’s motion by judgment entry dated August…”
State v. Eastham, 530 N.E.2d 409 (Ohio 1988). · cites it 2× “See R.C. 2907.41; N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law 65.00-65.”
Miller v. State, 517 N.E.2d 64 (Ind. 1987). · cites it 2× “); Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 2907.41 (Page 1987 Supp.”
State v. Knauff, 2011 Ohio 2725 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 3× “Craig at 1 Although the General Assembly recodified R.C. 2907.41 as R.C. 2945.481 in 1997, for the issues in this appeal, it is substantially identical to its prior version.”
State v. Boston, 545 N.E.2d 1220 (Ohio 1989). “The General Assembly has taken a step in that direction with the passage of R.C. 2907.41 [effective Oct. 14, 1986] which deals with child victim’s testimony.”
Ohio Ass'n of Pub. Sch. Employees v. Lakewood City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 68 Ohio St. 3d 175 (Ohio 1994). “2d 446 (use of child victim’s videotaped testimony in child sex abuse case, in accordance with R.C. 2907.41[A] and [B], does not violate Ohio or federal Confrontation Clauses); White v.”
State v. Carter, 2022 Ohio 4559 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 3× “Self, the Supreme Court of Ohio determined that R.C. 2907.41, which permitted the use of a child sexual abuse victim’s videotaped deposition at trial in place of live testimony, does not violate the Ohio or federal confrontation clauses.”
State v. Vaughn, 667 N.E.2d 82 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995). “The victim testified at trial by videotaped deposition pursuant to R.C. 2907.41. 3 . Appellant also asserts one additional “error,” claiming that his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution were violated.”
State v. Cooper, 743 N.E.2d 427 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000). “This statute is the recodified version of R.C. 2907.41(B)(1)(b), which contained precisely the same standard for a trial court's determination whether to allow videotaped testimony of a child victim in lieu of live testimony.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.41(A) — 4 cases
State v. Self, 564 N.E.2d 446 (Ohio 1990). “4-1 (A) Videotaped Deposition Procedure R.C. 2907.41, enacted in 1986, is intended to protect child sexual abuse victims from traumatization in an “intimidating courtroom atmosphere” while preserving the right of the accused to confront the witnesses against him.”
State v. Sibert, 648 N.E.2d 861 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994). “” Division (E) of R.C. 2907.41 provides: “For purposes of divisions (C) and (D) of this section, a judge may order the testimony of a child victim to be taken outside the room in which the proceeding is being conducted if the judge determines that the child victim is unavailable…”
State v. Knauff, 2011 Ohio 2725 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). “Craig at 1 Although the General Assembly recodified R.C. 2907.41 as R.C. 2945.481 in 1997, for the issues in this appeal, it is substantially identical to its prior version.”
State v. Saunders, 2024 Ohio 2224 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.41(A)(1) — 1 case
State v. Payton, 696 N.E.2d 240 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997). “On June 30, 1993, the prosecution filed a motion to videotape Amanda’s testimony pursuant to R.C. 2907.41. After conducting a hearing on July 26, 1993 on the issue of videotaping Amanda’s testimony, the trial court granted the prosecution’s motion by judgment entry dated August…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.41(A)(2) — 1 case
State v. Self, 564 N.E.2d 446 (Ohio 1990). “4-1 (A) Videotaped Deposition Procedure R.C. 2907.41, enacted in 1986, is intended to protect child sexual abuse victims from traumatization in an “intimidating courtroom atmosphere” while preserving the right of the accused to confront the witnesses against him.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.41(B)(1) — 1 case
State v. Self, 564 N.E.2d 446 (Ohio 1990). “4-1 (A) Videotaped Deposition Procedure R.C. 2907.41, enacted in 1986, is intended to protect child sexual abuse victims from traumatization in an “intimidating courtroom atmosphere” while preserving the right of the accused to confront the witnesses against him.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.41(B)(1)(b) — 3 cases
State v. Self, 564 N.E.2d 446 (Ohio 1990). “4-1 (A) Videotaped Deposition Procedure R.C. 2907.41, enacted in 1986, is intended to protect child sexual abuse victims from traumatization in an “intimidating courtroom atmosphere” while preserving the right of the accused to confront the witnesses against him.”
State v. Knauff, 2011 Ohio 2725 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). “Craig at 1 Although the General Assembly recodified R.C. 2907.41 as R.C. 2945.481 in 1997, for the issues in this appeal, it is substantially identical to its prior version.”
State v. Cooper, 743 N.E.2d 427 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000). “This statute is the recodified version of R.C. 2907.41(B)(1)(b), which contained precisely the same standard for a trial court's determination whether to allow videotaped testimony of a child victim in lieu of live testimony.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.41(C) — 3 cases
State v. Sibert, 648 N.E.2d 861 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994). “” Division (E) of R.C. 2907.41 provides: “For purposes of divisions (C) and (D) of this section, a judge may order the testimony of a child victim to be taken outside the room in which the proceeding is being conducted if the judge determines that the child victim is unavailable…”
Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990). “§ 30-9-17 (1984); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 2907.41 (A), (B), (D), (E) (1987); Okla.”
State v. Self, 564 N.E.2d 446 (Ohio 1990). “4-1 (A) Videotaped Deposition Procedure R.C. 2907.41, enacted in 1986, is intended to protect child sexual abuse victims from traumatization in an “intimidating courtroom atmosphere” while preserving the right of the accused to confront the witnesses against him.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.41(D) — 1 case
State v. Self, 564 N.E.2d 446 (Ohio 1990). “4-1 (A) Videotaped Deposition Procedure R.C. 2907.41, enacted in 1986, is intended to protect child sexual abuse victims from traumatization in an “intimidating courtroom atmosphere” while preserving the right of the accused to confront the witnesses against him.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.41(E) — 1 case
State v. Self, 564 N.E.2d 446 (Ohio 1990). “4-1 (A) Videotaped Deposition Procedure R.C. 2907.41, enacted in 1986, is intended to protect child sexual abuse victims from traumatization in an “intimidating courtroom atmosphere” while preserving the right of the accused to confront the witnesses against him.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.41(E)(3) — 1 case
State v. Sibert, 648 N.E.2d 861 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994). “” Division (E) of R.C. 2907.41 provides: “For purposes of divisions (C) and (D) of this section, a judge may order the testimony of a child victim to be taken outside the room in which the proceeding is being conducted if the judge determines that the child victim is unavailable…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.41(F)(2) — 1 case
State v. Payton, 696 N.E.2d 240 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997). “On June 30, 1993, the prosecution filed a motion to videotape Amanda’s testimony pursuant to R.C. 2907.41. After conducting a hearing on July 26, 1993 on the issue of videotaping Amanda’s testimony, the trial court granted the prosecution’s motion by judgment entry dated August…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.