When a change of venue is ordered pursuant to section 2901.12 of the Revised Code, the clerk of the court in which the cause is pending shall make a certified transcript of the proceedings in the case, which, with the original affidavit, complaint, indictment, or information, he shall transmit to the clerk of the court to which said case is sent for trial, and the trial shall be conducted as if the cause had originated in the jurisdiction of the latter court. The prosecuting attorney, city director of law, or other officer who would have prosecuted the case in the court in which the cause originated shall take charge of and try the cause, and the court to which the cause is sent may on application appoint one or more attorneys to assist the prosecutor in the trial, and allow the appointed attorneys reasonable compensation.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1956–2023 · leading case: State v. Maurer, 473 N.E.2d 768 (Ohio 1984).
State v. Maurer, 473 N.E.2d 768 (Ohio 1984). “” R.C. 2931.29 concerns the mechanism for effecting a change of venue if so ordered by the court: “When a change of venue is ordered pursuant to section 2901.”
State v. Chaffin, 282 N.E.2d 46 (Ohio 1972). · cites it 2ד2d 151, 164 , as follows: “ * * * Section 2931.29, Revised Code, provides, in part: ‘If it appears to the Court of Common Pleas, by affidavit or evidence in open court, that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in the county where a cause is pending, such court shall order…”
State v. Swiger, 214 N.E.2d 417 (Ohio 1966). · cites it 2דSection 2931.29, Revised Code, provides, in part: “If it appears to the Court of Common Pleas, by affidavit or evidence in open court, that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in the county where a cause is pending, such court shall order the accused tried in another county.”
Grinnell v. Cool, 2023-Ohio-3672, 230 N.E.3d 1114. “{¶ 3} In 2022, Grinnell filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Fourth District against Warden William Cool, arguing that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the criminal charges against him were not prosecuted by the Scioto County prosecuting…”
Wright v. State, 591 N.E.2d 1279 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1990). “75, R.C. 2931.29, R.C. 2151.25. In effect, there is no distinction between the three procedural devices.”
State v. Tannyhill, 140 N.E.2d 332 (Ohio Ct. App. 1956). · cites it 2דSection 2931.29, Revised Code (Act of February 26, 1816, 14 Ohio Laws, 386).”
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.