Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2921.25 (2026)

Peace officer's home address not to be disclosed during trial

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Effective:

March 30, 2007

Latest Legislation:

House Bill 141 - 126th General Assembly

PDF:

Download Authenticated PDF

(A) No judge of a court of record, or mayor presiding over a mayor's court, shall order a peace officer, parole officer, prosecuting attorney, assistant prosecuting attorney, correctional employee, or youth services employee who is a witness in a criminal case, to disclose the peace officer's, parole officer's, prosecuting attorney's, assistant prosecuting attorney's, correctional employee's, or youth services employee's home address during the peace officer's, parole officer's, prosecuting attorney's, assistant prosecuting attorney's, correctional employee's, or youth services employee's examination in the case, unless the judge or mayor determines that the defendant has a right to the disclosure.

(B) As used in this section:

(1) "Peace officer" has the same meaning as in section 2935.01 of the Revised Code.

(2) "Correctional employee" and "youth services employee" have the same meanings as in section 149.43 of the Revised Code.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1992–2021 · leading case: State v. Meadows, 2020 Ohio 4942 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Meadows, 2020 Ohio 4942 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “Appellant first contends that the trial court’s typographical error in the uncorrected, signed guilty plea form stated that appellant pled guilty to R.C. 2921.25(A)(D)(4), rather than the correct 4.”

State v. Martin, 2016 Ohio 225 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “{¶1} Appellant, Clarence Martin III [“Martin”] appeals his conviction and sentence after a jury trial in the Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas on one count of domestic violence in violation of R.C. 2921.25, a felony of the fourth degree.”

State Ex Rel. Nat'l Broad. Co. v. City of Cleveland, 611 N.E.2d 838 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992). “R.C. 2921.25 prohibits disclosure of a police officer’s home address during the police officer's testimony in a criminal case unless the judge or mayor determines that the defendant has a right to the disclosure.”

State v. Green, 2021 Ohio 2412 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “18 CR 00423B VIOLATES R.C. 2921.25 AS THE TWO CONVICTIONS THEREIN ARE FOR ALLIED OFFENSES OF SIMILAR IMPORT.”

State v. Davidson, 2013 Ohio 194 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “OT–10–004, 2011–Ohio–1550, ¶ 5, the new test in Johnson for determining whether offenses are subject to merger under R.C. 2921.25 is two-fold: “First, the court must determine whether the offenses are allied and of similar import.”

State v. Blackford, 2012 Ohio 4956 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “OT–10–004, 2011–Ohio–1550, ¶ 5, the new test in Johnson for determining whether offenses are subject to merger under R.C. 2921.25 is two-fold: “First, the court must determine whether the offenses are allied and of similar import.”

State v. Walton, 2012 Ohio 2597 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “OT–10–004, 2011–Ohio–1550, ¶ 5, the new test in Johnson for determining whether offenses are subject to merger under R.C. 2921.25 is two-fold: “First, the court must determine whether the offenses are allied and of similar import.”

State v. Jones, 2011 Ohio 2306 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). “10 CA 50 6 2011-Ohio-1550 , ¶ 5, the new test in Johnson for determining whether offenses are subject to merger under R.C. 2921.25 is two-fold: “First, the court must determine whether the offenses are allied and of similar import.”

State v. Mowery, 2012 Ohio 4532 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “OT–10–004, 2011–Ohio–1550, ¶ 5, the new test in Johnson for determining whether offenses are subject to merger under R.C. 2921.25 is two-fold: “First, the court must determine whether the offenses are allied and of similar import.”

— Ohio Rev. Code § 2921.25(A)(D)(4) — 1 case

State v. Meadows, 2020 Ohio 4942 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “Appellant first contends that the trial court’s typographical error in the uncorrected, signed guilty plea form stated that appellant pled guilty to R.C. 2921.25(A)(D)(4), rather than the correct 4.”

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.