Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2937 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2937.222 (2026)

Hearing on bail - grounds for denying

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
January 1, 2004
Latest Legislation:
Senate Bill 123 - 124th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) On the motion of the prosecuting attorney or on the judge's own motion, the judge shall hold a hearing to determine whether an accused person charged with aggravated murder when it is not a capital offense, murder, a felony of the first or second degree, a violation of section 2903.06 of the Revised Code, a violation of section 2903.211 of the Revised Code that is a felony, or a felony OVI offense shall be denied bail. The judge shall order that the accused be detained until the conclusion of the hearing. Except for good cause, a continuance on the motion of the state shall not exceed three court days. Except for good cause, a continuance on the motion of the accused shall not exceed five court days unless the motion of the accused waives in writing the five-day limit and states in writing a specific period for which the accused requests a continuance. A continuance granted upon a motion of the accused that waives in writing the five-day limit shall not exceed five court days after the period of continuance requested in the motion.

At the hearing, the accused has the right to be represented by counsel and, if the accused is indigent, to have counsel appointed. The judge shall afford the accused an opportunity to testify, to present witnesses and other information, and to cross-examine witnesses who appear at the hearing. The rules concerning admissibility of evidence in criminal trials do not apply to the presentation and consideration of information at the hearing. Regardless of whether the hearing is being held on the motion of the prosecuting attorney or on the court's own motion, the state has the burden of proving that the proof is evident or the presumption great that the accused committed the offense with which the accused is charged, of proving that the accused poses a substantial risk of serious physical harm to any person or to the community, and of proving that no release conditions will reasonably assure the safety of that person and the community.

The judge may reopen the hearing at any time before trial if the judge finds that information exists that was not known to the movant at the time of the hearing and that that information has a material bearing on whether bail should be denied. If a municipal court or county court enters an order denying bail, a judge of the court of common pleas having jurisdiction over the case may continue that order or may hold a hearing pursuant to this section to determine whether to continue that order.

(B) No accused person shall be denied bail pursuant to this section unless the judge finds by clear and convincing evidence that the proof is evident or the presumption great that the accused committed the offense described in division (A) of this section with which the accused is charged, finds by clear and convincing evidence that the accused poses a substantial risk of serious physical harm to any person or to the community, and finds by clear and convincing evidence that no release conditions will reasonably assure the safety of that person and the community.

(C) The judge, in determining whether the accused person described in division (A) of this section poses a substantial risk of serious physical harm to any person or to the community and whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the safety of that person and the community, shall consider all available information regarding all of the following:

(1) The nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including whether the offense is an offense of violence or involves alcohol or a drug of abuse;

(2) The weight of the evidence against the accused;

(3) The history and characteristics of the accused, including, but not limited to, both of the following:

(a) The character, physical and mental condition, family ties, employment, financial resources, length of residence in the community, community ties, past conduct, history relating to drug or alcohol abuse, and criminal history of the accused;

(b) Whether, at the time of the current alleged offense or at the time of the arrest of the accused, the accused was on probation, parole, post-release control, or other release pending trial, sentencing, appeal, or completion of sentence for the commission of an offense under the laws of this state, another state, or the United States or under a municipal ordinance.

(4) The nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the person's release.

(D)(1) An order of the court of common pleas denying bail pursuant to this section is a final appealable order. In an appeal pursuant to division (D) of this section, the court of appeals shall do all of the following:

(a) Give the appeal priority on its calendar;

(b) Liberally modify or dispense with formal requirements in the interest of a speedy and just resolution of the appeal;

(c) Decide the appeal expeditiously;

(d) Promptly enter its judgment affirming or reversing the order denying bail.

(2) The pendency of an appeal under this section does not deprive the court of common pleas of jurisdiction to conduct further proceedings in the case or to further consider the order denying bail in accordance with this section. If, during the pendency of an appeal under division (D) of this section, the court of common pleas sets aside or terminates the order denying bail, the court of appeals shall dismiss the appeal.

(E) As used in this section:

(1) "Court day" has the same meaning as in section 5122.01 of the Revised Code.

(2) "Felony OVI offense" means a third degree felony OVI offense and a fourth degree felony OVI offense.

(3) "Fourth degree felony OVI offense" and "third degree felony OVI offense" have the same meanings as in section 2929.01 of the Revised Code.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 57 cases (43 in the last 5 years), 2001–2026 · leading case: State ex rel. Garcia v. Baldwin, 2023 Ohio 1636 (Ohio 2023).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State ex rel. Garcia v. Baldwin, 2023 Ohio 1636 (Ohio 2023). · cites it 54× “46—Habeas corpus is not the proper action by which to challenge a trial court’s denial of bail under R.C. 2937.222, because R.C. 2937.222(D)(1) provides the detainee with adequate remedy in ordinary course of law by way of direct appeal from trial court’s order denying…”
Smith v. Leis, 106 Ohio St. 3d 309 (Ohio 2005). · cites it 14× “46 or R.C. 2937.222. {¶ 2} On May 16, 2001, Smith was arrested for the shooting of four individuals and his bond was set at $250,000.”
State v. Sowders, 2022 Ohio 2401 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 22× “{¶11} This constitutional provision has been codified in R.C. 2937.222. 2. R.C. 2937.222 {¶12} Pursuant to R.”
DuBose v. McGuffey (Slip Opinion), 2022 Ohio 8 (Ohio 2022). · cites it 14× “7 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 21} Alternatively, if the state believes that a person poses a danger to the community and must be held without the possibility of release, then the state must follow the procedures set forth in R.C. 2937.222 for an order of detention without bail.”
State v. Henderson, 2017 Ohio 2678 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 14× “222(A)] with which the accused is charged, finds by clear and convincing evidence that the accused poses a substantial risk of serious physical harm to any person or to the community, and finds by clear and convincing evidence that no release conditions will reasonably assure…”
State v. Murray, 2022 Ohio 3411 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 32× “{¶2} In one assignment of error, Murray complains that the trial court failed to comply with the dictates of R.C 2937.222 when it denied the motion to reset conditions for his pretrial release.”
Disciplinary Couns. v. Gaul, 2023 Ohio 4751 (Ohio 2023). · cites it 11× “8.4(d). Gaul stipulated to violating Jud.”
State v. De La Cruz, 2022 Ohio 4293 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 17× “The following day, the state moved to hold appellant without bail pursuant to R.C. 2937.222. The trial court conducted a hearing to consider both motions.”
Mohamed v. Eckelberry (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 4585 (Ohio 2020). · cites it 9× “R.C. 2937.222. See also Crim.R. 46(A). Nothing in this court’s record in this case suggests that the state believes Mohamed poses a substantial public-safety risk or that the common pleas court held a hearing under R.”
State v. Mitchell, 2019 Ohio 2465 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 11× “According to Mitchell, the trial court abused its discretion because the State failed to establish the required factors in R.C. 2937.222 by clear and convincing evidence.”
State ex rel. Garcia v. Baldwin, 2022 Ohio 4534 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 28× “46 allows a court to amend the bail when a defendant breaches a condition of his bond but does not authorize the court to detain a defendant without bond for violating a release condition; (2) R.C. 2937.222 governs the procedure for detaining a defendant without bond when it is…”
State v. Knowles, 2022 Ohio 3264 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 16× “Analysis {¶ 16} Appellant argues in his first assignment of error that the trial court erred when it ordered him to be held without bail pursuant to R.C. 2937.222. The statute provides that a defendant charged with certain serious offenses, including, as relevant to this appeal,…”
Show all 57 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2937.222(A) — 30 cases
State ex rel. Garcia v. Baldwin, 2023 Ohio 1636 (Ohio 2023). “46—Habeas corpus is not the proper action by which to challenge a trial court’s denial of bail under R.C. 2937.222, because R.C. 2937.222(D)(1) provides the detainee with adequate remedy in ordinary course of law by way of direct appeal from trial court’s order denying…”
State v. Henderson, 2017 Ohio 2678 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “222(A)] with which the accused is charged, finds by clear and convincing evidence that the accused poses a substantial risk of serious physical harm to any person or to the community, and finds by clear and convincing evidence that no release conditions will reasonably assure…”
State v. Murray, 2022 Ohio 3411 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “{¶2} In one assignment of error, Murray complains that the trial court failed to comply with the dictates of R.C 2937.222 when it denied the motion to reset conditions for his pretrial release.”
Mohamed v. Eckelberry (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 4585 (Ohio 2020). “R.C. 2937.222. See also Crim.R. 46(A). Nothing in this court’s record in this case suggests that the state believes Mohamed poses a substantial public-safety risk or that the common pleas court held a hearing under R.”
State v. Sowders, 2022 Ohio 2401 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “{¶11} This constitutional provision has been codified in R.C. 2937.222. 2. R.C. 2937.222 {¶12} Pursuant to R.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2937.222(B) — 32 cases
Disciplinary Couns. v. Gaul, 2023 Ohio 4751 (Ohio 2023). “8.4(d). Gaul stipulated to violating Jud.”
State v. Torres-Mesa, 2023 Ohio 4397 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
DuBose v. McGuffey (Slip Opinion), 2022 Ohio 8 (Ohio 2022). “7 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 21} Alternatively, if the state believes that a person poses a danger to the community and must be held without the possibility of release, then the state must follow the procedures set forth in R.C. 2937.222 for an order of detention without bail.”
State v. Sowders, 2022 Ohio 2401 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “{¶11} This constitutional provision has been codified in R.C. 2937.222. 2. R.C. 2937.222 {¶12} Pursuant to R.”
State v. Henderson, 2017 Ohio 2678 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “222(A)] with which the accused is charged, finds by clear and convincing evidence that the accused poses a substantial risk of serious physical harm to any person or to the community, and finds by clear and convincing evidence that no release conditions will reasonably assure…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2937.222(C) — 22 cases
State v. Sowders, 2022 Ohio 2401 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “{¶11} This constitutional provision has been codified in R.C. 2937.222. 2. R.C. 2937.222 {¶12} Pursuant to R.”
State ex rel. Garcia v. Baldwin, 2023 Ohio 1636 (Ohio 2023). “46—Habeas corpus is not the proper action by which to challenge a trial court’s denial of bail under R.C. 2937.222, because R.C. 2937.222(D)(1) provides the detainee with adequate remedy in ordinary course of law by way of direct appeal from trial court’s order denying…”
State v. Knowles, 2022 Ohio 3264 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “Analysis {¶ 16} Appellant argues in his first assignment of error that the trial court erred when it ordered him to be held without bail pursuant to R.C. 2937.222. The statute provides that a defendant charged with certain serious offenses, including, as relevant to this appeal,…”
State v. Mitchell, 2019 Ohio 2465 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “According to Mitchell, the trial court abused its discretion because the State failed to establish the required factors in R.C. 2937.222 by clear and convincing evidence.”
State v. Blackshear, 2022 Ohio 230 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2937.222(C)(1) — 5 cases
State v. Sowders, 2022 Ohio 2401 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “{¶11} This constitutional provision has been codified in R.C. 2937.222. 2. R.C. 2937.222 {¶12} Pursuant to R.”
State v. Dearth, 2023 Ohio 968 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
State v. Knowles, 2022 Ohio 3264 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “Analysis {¶ 16} Appellant argues in his first assignment of error that the trial court erred when it ordered him to be held without bail pursuant to R.C. 2937.222. The statute provides that a defendant charged with certain serious offenses, including, as relevant to this appeal,…”
State v. Campbell, 2024 Ohio 3340 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
Evans v. McGuffey, 2025 Ohio 5205 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2937.222(C)(2) — 2 cases
State v. Sowders, 2022 Ohio 2401 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “{¶11} This constitutional provision has been codified in R.C. 2937.222. 2. R.C. 2937.222 {¶12} Pursuant to R.”
State v. Campbell, 2024 Ohio 3340 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2937.222(C)(3) — 3 cases
State v. Sowders, 2022 Ohio 2401 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “{¶11} This constitutional provision has been codified in R.C. 2937.222. 2. R.C. 2937.222 {¶12} Pursuant to R.”
State v. Dearth, 2023 Ohio 968 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
State v. Torres-Mesa, 2023 Ohio 4397 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2937.222(C)(3)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Knowles, 2022 Ohio 3264 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “Analysis {¶ 16} Appellant argues in his first assignment of error that the trial court erred when it ordered him to be held without bail pursuant to R.C. 2937.222. The statute provides that a defendant charged with certain serious offenses, including, as relevant to this appeal,…”
State v. Campbell, 2024 Ohio 3340 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2937.222(C)(4) — 4 cases
State v. Sowders, 2022 Ohio 2401 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “{¶11} This constitutional provision has been codified in R.C. 2937.222. 2. R.C. 2937.222 {¶12} Pursuant to R.”
State v. Burney, 2014 Ohio 2622 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
State v. Dearth, 2023 Ohio 968 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
State v. Campbell, 2024 Ohio 3340 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2937.222(D) — 6 cases
State ex rel. Garcia v. Baldwin, 2023 Ohio 1636 (Ohio 2023). “46—Habeas corpus is not the proper action by which to challenge a trial court’s denial of bail under R.C. 2937.222, because R.C. 2937.222(D)(1) provides the detainee with adequate remedy in ordinary course of law by way of direct appeal from trial court’s order denying…”
Mohamed v. Eckelberry (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 4585 (Ohio 2020). “R.C. 2937.222. See also Crim.R. 46(A). Nothing in this court’s record in this case suggests that the state believes Mohamed poses a substantial public-safety risk or that the common pleas court held a hearing under R.”
State ex rel. Hayes v. Phipps, 2024 Ohio 1286 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
Turner v. Sutula, 2014 Ohio 5696 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
State v. Savage, 2024 Ohio 2497 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2937.222(D)(1) — 16 cases
State v. Murray, 2022 Ohio 3411 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “{¶2} In one assignment of error, Murray complains that the trial court failed to comply with the dictates of R.C 2937.222 when it denied the motion to reset conditions for his pretrial release.”
State v. Sowders, 2022 Ohio 2401 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “{¶11} This constitutional provision has been codified in R.C. 2937.222. 2. R.C. 2937.222 {¶12} Pursuant to R.”
State v. Henderson, 2017 Ohio 2678 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “222(A)] with which the accused is charged, finds by clear and convincing evidence that the accused poses a substantial risk of serious physical harm to any person or to the community, and finds by clear and convincing evidence that no release conditions will reasonably assure…”
State ex rel. Garcia v. Baldwin, 2022 Ohio 4534 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “46 allows a court to amend the bail when a defendant breaches a condition of his bond but does not authorize the court to detain a defendant without bond for violating a release condition; (2) R.C. 2937.222 governs the procedure for detaining a defendant without bond when it is…”
State ex rel. Garcia v. Baldwin, 2023 Ohio 1636 (Ohio 2023). “46—Habeas corpus is not the proper action by which to challenge a trial court’s denial of bail under R.C. 2937.222, because R.C. 2937.222(D)(1) provides the detainee with adequate remedy in ordinary course of law by way of direct appeal from trial court’s order denying…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2937.222(D)(1)(a) — 3 cases
State v. Burney, 2014 Ohio 2622 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
State v. Dearth, 2023 Ohio 968 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
State v. S.D.D., 2023 Ohio 4040 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2937.222(D)(1)(c) — 1 case
State ex rel. Garcia v. Baldwin, 2023 Ohio 1636 (Ohio 2023). “46—Habeas corpus is not the proper action by which to challenge a trial court’s denial of bail under R.C. 2937.222, because R.C. 2937.222(D)(1) provides the detainee with adequate remedy in ordinary course of law by way of direct appeal from trial court’s order denying…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2937.222(D)(2) — 3 cases
State v. Henderson, 2017 Ohio 2678 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “222(A)] with which the accused is charged, finds by clear and convincing evidence that the accused poses a substantial risk of serious physical harm to any person or to the community, and finds by clear and convincing evidence that no release conditions will reasonably assure…”
State v. Murray, 2022 Ohio 3411 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “{¶2} In one assignment of error, Murray complains that the trial court failed to comply with the dictates of R.C 2937.222 when it denied the motion to reset conditions for his pretrial release.”
Cleveland v. Kopilchak, 2022 Ohio 1408 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
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.