The trial of an issue shall proceed before the trial court or jury as follows:
(A) Counsel may state the case for the prosecution, including the evidence by which he expects to sustain it.
(B) Counsel for the defendant may state his defense, including the evidence which he expects to offer.
(C) The prosecution then shall produce all its evidence, and the defendant may follow with his evidence, but the court or magistrate, in the furtherance of justice and for good cause shown, may permit evidence to be offered by either side out of its order and may permit rebuttal evidence to be offered by the prosecution.
(D) When the evidence is concluded, unless the case is submitted without argument, counsel for the prosecution shall commence, defendant or his counsel follow, and counsel for the prosecution conclude his argument either to the court or jury. The judge or magistrate may impose a reasonable time limit on argument.
(E) The judge, after argument is concluded in a jury case, forthwith shall charge the jury on the law pertaining to the case and controlling their deliberations, which charge shall not be reduced to writing and taken into the jury room unless the trial judge in his discretion shall so order.
(F) Any verdict arrived at by the jury, or finding determined by the judge or magistrate in trial to the court, shall be announced and received only in open court as soon as it is determined. Any finding by the judge or magistrate shall be announced in open court not more than forty-eight hours after submission of the case to him.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1966–2024 · leading case: State v. English, 2020-Ohio-4682.
State v. English, 2020-Ohio-4682. · cites it 2דHe argues this irregularity violated R.C. 2938.11(F),2 Crim.R. 31(A),3 and his constitutional rights to a public trial and to be present at all critical stages of the proceedings.”
State v. Woods, 2018-Ohio-4856. · cites it 5ד” R.C. 2938.11.(F)(11) offers guidance on this issue.”
Maumee v. Yeager, 2024-Ohio-858, 238 N.E.3d 178. · cites it 2דBench Trial - Findings/Judgments {¶ 50} R.C. 2938.11(F) provides in pertinent part that “[a]ny * * * finding determined by the judge * * * in trial to the court, shall be announced and received only in open court as soon as it is determined.”
State v. Harris, 2018-Ohio-1329, 110 N.E.3d 176. · cites it 13דASSIGNMENT OF ERROR TWO THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW, WHERE IT FAILED TO COMPLY WITH R.C. 2938.11(F) BY NOT ANNOUNCING IN OPEN COURT THE VERDICT, OR FINDINGS DETERMINED BY THE JUDGE, IN DEFENDANT-APPELLANT'S BENCH…”
City of Xenia v. Manker, 480 N.E.2d 94 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1984). · cites it 2דAppellant submits the lapse of time from the submission of his case for decision, July 8, 1983, and October 4, 1983, when the decision and final judgment were entered, violated his right to a speedy disposition of his case.”
State v. Echols, 752 N.E.2d 314 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. 2001). · cites it 3דThe first assignment of error is sustained. The second assignment of error states: “A defendant is denied due process of law due to unreasonable delay in pronouncing a judgment and sentence, where an entry of conviction is not made until forty days after trial.”
State v. Fiorenzo, 671 N.E.2d 287 (Ohio Ct. App. 11th Dist. 1996). · cites it 2ד” In his first assignment of error, appellant argues that the twenty-day period from the time the case was submitted for decision, October 19, 1994, to the time when the trial court actually announced its decision, November 8, 1994, violated his right to a speedy disposition of…”
State ex rel. Turrin v. Cnty. Court, 214 N.E.2d 670 (Ohio 1966). · cites it 2דIn regard to the contention in the Rassin case that Section 2938.11 (F), Revised Code, was not complied with, the petition alleges that the case was submitted on December 14, 1964, at 11 a.”
City of Univ. Heights v. Dachman, 484 N.E.2d 199 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1984). “10(A) and R.C. 2938.11(A) when the prosecutor waived an opening statement and failed, refused, and neglected to make an opening statement whereupon the defendant requested dismissal, as a result of the prosecution’s failure to comply with the law.”
State ex rel. Martin v. Mannen, 113 Ohio St. 3d 373 (2007). · cites it 3ד{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment denying a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel a common pleas court judge to vacate convictions and a sentence because, pursuant to R.C. 2938.11(F), the judge did not announce her verdict within 48 hours after submission of the case…”
English v. Warden. Trumbull Corr. Inst., No. 1:22-cv-00156 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 19, 2022). “He argues this irregularity violated R.C. 2938.11(F),2 Crim.R. 31(A),3 and his constitutional rights to a public trial and to be present at all critical stages of the proceedings.”
State v. Ake, 728 N.E.2d 454 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 1999). “2d 670, 671-672 (holding that time period in R.C. 2938.11[F] is directoiy); State ex rel.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2938.11(A): 1 case
City of Univ. Heights v. Dachman, 484 N.E.2d 199 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1984). “10(A) and R.C. 2938.11(A) when the prosecutor waived an opening statement and failed, refused, and neglected to make an opening statement whereupon the defendant requested dismissal, as a result of the prosecution’s failure to comply with the law.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2938.11(F): 9 cases
State v. English, 2020-Ohio-4682. “He argues this irregularity violated R.C. 2938.11(F),2 Crim.R. 31(A),3 and his constitutional rights to a public trial and to be present at all critical stages of the proceedings.”
State v. Woods, 2018-Ohio-4856. “” R.C. 2938.11.(F)(11) offers guidance on this issue.”
Maumee v. Yeager, 2024-Ohio-858, 238 N.E.3d 178. “Bench Trial - Findings/Judgments {¶ 50} R.C. 2938.11(F) provides in pertinent part that “[a]ny * * * finding determined by the judge * * * in trial to the court, shall be announced and received only in open court as soon as it is determined.”
State v. Harris, 2018-Ohio-1329, 110 N.E.3d 176. “ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR TWO THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW, WHERE IT FAILED TO COMPLY WITH R.C. 2938.11(F) BY NOT ANNOUNCING IN OPEN COURT THE VERDICT, OR FINDINGS DETERMINED BY THE JUDGE, IN DEFENDANT-APPELLANT'S BENCH…”
City of Xenia v. Manker, 480 N.E.2d 94 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1984). “Appellant submits the lapse of time from the submission of his case for decision, July 8, 1983, and October 4, 1983, when the decision and final judgment were entered, violated his right to a speedy disposition of his case.”
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.