Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2929 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.05 (2026)

Supreme court review upon appeal of sentence of death

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
July 29, 1998
Latest Legislation:
Senate Bill 107 - 122nd General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) Whenever sentence of death is imposed pursuant to sections 2929.03 and 2929.04 of the Revised Code, the court of appeals, in a case in which a sentence of death was imposed for an offense committed before January 1, 1995, and the supreme court shall review upon appeal the sentence of death at the same time that they review the other issues in the case. The court of appeals and the supreme court shall review the judgment in the case and the sentence of death imposed by the court or panel of three judges in the same manner that they review other criminal cases, except that they shall review and independently weigh all of the facts and other evidence disclosed in the record in the case and consider the offense and the offender to determine whether the aggravating circumstances the offender was found guilty of committing outweigh the mitigating factors in the case, and whether the sentence of death is appropriate. In determining whether the sentence of death is appropriate, the court of appeals, in a case in which a sentence of death was imposed for an offense committed before January 1, 1995, and the supreme court shall consider whether the sentence is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases. They also shall review all of the facts and other evidence to determine if the evidence supports the finding of the aggravating circumstances the trial jury or the panel of three judges found the offender guilty of committing, and shall determine whether the sentencing court properly weighed the aggravating circumstances the offender was found guilty of committing and the mitigating factors. The court of appeals, in a case in which a sentence of death was imposed for an offense committed before January 1, 1995, or the supreme court shall affirm a sentence of death only if the particular court is persuaded from the record that the aggravating circumstances the offender was found guilty of committing outweigh the mitigating factors present in the case and that the sentence of death is the appropriate sentence in the case.

A court of appeals that reviews a case in which the sentence of death is imposed for an offense committed before January 1, 1995, shall file a separate opinion as to its findings in the case with the clerk of the supreme court. The opinion shall be filed within fifteen days after the court issues its opinion and shall contain whatever information is required by the clerk of the supreme court.

(B) The court of appeals, in a case in which a sentence of death was imposed for an offense committed before January 1, 1995, and the supreme court shall give priority over all other cases to the review of judgments in which the sentence of death is imposed and, except as otherwise provided in this section, shall conduct the review in accordance with the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

(C) At any time after a sentence of death is imposed pursuant to section 2929.022 or 2929.03 of the Revised Code, the court of common pleas that sentenced the offender shall vacate the sentence if the offender did not present evidence at trial that the offender was not eighteen years of age or older at the time of the commission of the aggravated murder for which the offender was sentenced and if the offender shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the offender was less than eighteen years of age at the time of the commission of the aggravated murder for which the offender was sentenced. The court is not required to hold a hearing on a motion filed pursuant to this division unless the court finds, based on the motion and any supporting information submitted by the defendant, any information submitted by the prosecuting attorney, and the record in the case, including any previous hearings and orders, probable cause to believe that the defendant was not eighteen years of age or older at the time of the commission of the aggravated murder for which the defendant was sentenced to death.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 477 cases (40 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case: State v. Graham (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 6700 (Ohio 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Graham (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 6700 (Ohio 2020). · cites it 24× “2d 29 (1984), Ohio has had such a law in place since 1981, R.C. 2929.05, Am.Sub.S.B. No. 1, 139 Ohio Laws, Part I, 1, 17-18 (effective Oct.”
State v. Adams (Slip Opinion), 2015 Ohio 3954 (Ohio 2015). · cites it 21× “] Criminal Law—Aggravated murder—R.C. 2929.05(A)—Independent review of sufficiency of the evidence supporting R.”
State v. Nicholson, 2024 Ohio 604 (Ohio 2024). · cites it 18× “When this court conducts an independent review of a death sentence, as it is charged with doing, R.C. 2929.05, its role is not to second-guess the initial sentencing deciders or supplant their judgment with that of 137 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO this court.”
State v. Obermiller (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 1594 (Ohio 2016). · cites it 8× “R.C. 2929.05(A). {¶ 130} To conduct the independent review of a death sentence under R.”
State v. Sowell (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 8025 (Ohio 2016). · cites it 9× “Settled Issues {¶ 151} “The proportionality review required by R.C. 2929.05(A) is satisfied by a review of those cases already decided by the reviewing court in which the death penalty has been imposed.”
State v. Thompson (Slip Opinion), 2014 Ohio 4751 (Ohio 2014). · cites it 10× “The weighing of aggravating factors against mitigating factors is what R.C. 2929.05 requires, and absent a real independent weighing of a death sentence, there is no way to reasonably argue that the process that resulted in that sentence comports with due process.”
State v. Bradley, 538 N.E.2d 373 (Ohio 1989). · cites it 6× “nce of death in the present case is inappropriate due to the large number of errors occurring at both the guilt and mitigation phases of trial thereby depriving the sentence of all indication of reliability as required by the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United…”
State v. Jenkins, 473 N.E.2d 264 (Ohio 1984). · cites it 9× “VIII R.C. 2929.05 requires this court and the court of appeals to determine whether the sentence of death is disproportionate to sentences imposed for similar crimes.”
State v. Kirkland (Slip Opinion), 2014 Ohio 1966 (Ohio 2014). · cites it 8× “{¶ 96} In sum, we find that the state’s closing remarks in the penalty phase were improper and substantially prejudicial.”
State v. Worley (Slip Opinion), 2021 Ohio 2207 (Ohio 2021). · cites it 7× “2d 264 (“R.C. 2929.05 does not require a comparison of sentences in non-capital murder cases for proportionality review”).”
State v. Clinton, 108 N.E.3d 1 (Ohio 2017). · cites it 5× “Counsel added, "[W]e would like to present this and, frankly, put it under seal, because much of the information is really not for public consumption. One of the bases for * * * Curtis not to present it is he didn't want the family dysfunction to be put out for the public record.”
State v. Williams, 652 N.E.2d 721 (Ohio 1995). · cites it 13× “XII Having undertaken the three-prong analysis mandated by R.C. 2929.05 and concluding that the sentence is both proportionate to like cases where the death penalty has been affirmed and that the aggravating circumstance outweighs the mitigating factors beyond a reasonable…”
Show all 477 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.05(A) — 378 cases
State v. Adams (Slip Opinion), 2015 Ohio 3954 (Ohio 2015). “] Criminal Law—Aggravated murder—R.C. 2929.05(A)—Independent review of sufficiency of the evidence supporting R.”
State v. Graham (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 6700 (Ohio 2020). “2d 29 (1984), Ohio has had such a law in place since 1981, R.C. 2929.05, Am.Sub.S.B. No. 1, 139 Ohio Laws, Part I, 1, 17-18 (effective Oct.”
State v. Obermiller (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 1594 (Ohio 2016). “R.C. 2929.05(A). {¶ 130} To conduct the independent review of a death sentence under R.”
State v. Sowell (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 8025 (Ohio 2016). “Settled Issues {¶ 151} “The proportionality review required by R.C. 2929.05(A) is satisfied by a review of those cases already decided by the reviewing court in which the death penalty has been imposed.”
State v. Kirkland (Slip Opinion), 2014 Ohio 1966 (Ohio 2014). “{¶ 96} In sum, we find that the state’s closing remarks in the penalty phase were improper and substantially prejudicial.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.05(A)(5) — 1 case
State v. Six, 2023 Ohio 2892 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.05(AX5) — 1 case
State v. Gillard, 4 Ohio App. Unrep. 149 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.05(B) — 1 case
State v. Beckwith, 2022 Ohio 2362 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.05(B)(1)(b) — 1 case
State v. Brooks, 2024 Ohio 420 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.05(B)(5) — 2 cases
State v. Grant, 620 N.E.2d 50 (Ohio 1993).
State v. Grant, 1993 Ohio 171 (Ohio 1993).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.05(b) — 1 case
Moreland v. Bradshaw, 635 F. Supp. 2d 680 (S.D. Ohio 2009).
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.