Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2939
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2939.01 (2026)

Grand jury definitions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
October 1, 1953
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 1 - 100th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

The definition of "magistrate" set forth in section 2931.01 of the Revised Code applies to Chapter 2939. of the Revised Code.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1963–1996 · leading case: Mayes v. City of Columbus, 664 N.E.2d 1340 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mayes v. City of Columbus, 664 N.E.2d 1340 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995). “Further, Detective Schrader testified that she prepared a four-page investigative summary for grand jury purposes. She stated that she did not include the statement by Dorothy Holland to JoAnn Alexander that “[m]y friends are here to help me find my money.”
State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publ'g Co. v. Waters, 617 N.E.2d 1110 (Ohio 1993). “Thus, far from establishing inherent authority of the court of common pleas, these cases emphasize the derivative nature of that authority.”
State v. Asher, 679 N.E.2d 1147 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996). “However, in this instance, it appears that the grand jury was used to accomplish a purpose for which it was not designed, namely as a means to coerce and compel the testimony of Haunz-Asher so that the prosecution could use it in its case against Asher.”
State ex rel. Shoop v. Mitrovich, 448 N.E.2d 800 (Ohio 1983). “R.C. 2939.01 et seq.; Crim. R. 6. The grand jury is essentially an arm of the court.”
State v. Ball, 595 N.E.2d 502 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991). “R.C. 2939.01 et seq. imposes no statutory duty upon the prosecutor to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury.”
Simington v. Shimp, 398 N.E.2d 812 (Ohio Ct. App. 1978). “2-06 (1977); Ohio R.C. 2939.01 - 2939.29 (1977); OMa. Stat.”
State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publ'g Co. v. Waters, 1993 Ohio 77 (Ohio 1993). “Thus, far from establishing inherent authority of the court of common pleas, these cases emphasize the derivative nature of that authority.”
State ex rel. Burton v. Smith, 174 Ohio St. (N.S.) 429 (Ohio 1963). · cites it 2× “” The answer to this question depends upon the construction given to Sections 2939.01 to 2939.24, inclusive, and Sections 2313.”
State ex rel. Baxter v. Maschari, 6 Ohio App. Unrep. 180 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990). “3d 220 , held that the court of common pleas has jurisdiction to supervise those aspects of the grand jury as enumerated in R.C. 2939.01, et seq., and Crim. R. 6. The Shoup court stated that the grand jury is under the control and the direction of the court of common pleas and…”
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.