Grand juries shall consist of fifteen persons who satisfy the qualifications of a juror specified in section 2313.17 of the Revised Code. Persons to serve as grand jurors in the court of common pleas of each county shall be selected from the persons whose names are contained in the annual jury list.
At the time of the selection of the persons who are to constitute the grand jury, the commissioners of jurors shall randomly draw from the annual jury list the names of not fewer than twenty-five persons. The first fifteen persons whose names are drawn shall constitute the grand jury, if they can be located and served by the sheriff, and if they are not excused by the court or a judge of the court. If any of the first fifteen persons whose names are so drawn are not located or are unable to serve and are for that reason excused by the court or by a judge of the court, whose duty it is to supervise the impaneling of the grand jury, the judge shall then designate the person whose name next appears on the list of persons drawn, to serve in the place of the person not found or excused and shall so continue to substitute the names of the persons drawn in the order in which they were drawn, to fill all vacancies resulting from persons not being found or having been excused by the court or the judge of the court, until the necessary fifteen persons are selected to make up the grand jury. If all of the names appearing on the list of persons drawn are exhausted before the grand jury is complete, the judge shall order the commissioners of jurors to draw such additional names as the judge determines, and shall proceed to fill the vacancies from those names in the order in which they are drawn.
The judge of the court of common pleas may select any person who satisfies the qualifications of a juror and whose name is not included in the annual jury list to preside as foreperson of the grand jury, in which event the grand jury shall consist of the foreperson so selected and fourteen additional grand jurors selected from the annual jury list.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1955–2025 · leading case: State v. Holmes, 2019-Ohio-2485.
State v. Holmes, 2019-Ohio-2485. · cites it 12ד6(A) is unconstitutional, in violation of Article I, Section 10, of the Ohio Constitution and R.C. §2939.02. {¶9} In her first assignment of error, Holmes argues that the trial court erred by denying her motion to dismiss.”
State v. Brown, 528 N.E.2d 523 (Ohio 1988). · cites it 3דThe indictment is alleged to be defective for two reasons: (1) the indictment was issued by a grand jury composed of nine people rather than the fifteen required by R.C. 2939.02; and (2) the indictment was secured without adequate evidence.”
State v. Bingham, 2019-Ohio-3324, 141 N.E.3d 614. · cites it 4ד6(A) is unconstitutional, in violation of Article I, Section 10, of the Ohio Constitution and R.C. §2939.02. {¶12} In his first assignment of error, Bingham argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss.”
State v. Williams, 679 N.E.2d 646 (Ohio 1997). “13 as made applicable to grand juries by R.C. 2939.02 and 2939.03. R.C. 2313.08 requires the jury commissioners in each county to make up an annual jury list, certify it, file it in their office before the beginning of each jury year, and certify and file a duplicate list in the…”
State v. Coleman, 544 N.E.2d 622 (Ohio 1989). “R.C. 2939.02 and 2939.20 are superseded insofar as they conflict with this rule.”
Hammond v. Brown, 323 F. Supp. 326 (N.D. Ohio 1971). · cites it 2דHastings as foreman from outside the jury wheel as empowered by Ohio Rev. Code § 2939.02. Before he charged the Special Grand Jury, Judge Jones administered the oath prescribed by Ohio Rev.”
State v. Williams, 79 Ohio St. 3d 1 (Ohio 1997). “13 as made applicable to grand juries by R.C. 2939.02 and 2939.03. {¶ 69} R.C. 2313.”
State v. Thomas, 609 N.E.2d 601 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1992). “We address the issue only insofar as it may have bearing on the assignments of error properly presented here.”
State v. Mirman, 133 N.E.2d 796 (Ohio Ct. App. 1955). · cites it 2דThe Revised Code provides, in Chapter 2939, Section 2939.02, et seq., for the organization and selection of a grand jury.”
State, Ex Rel. Burton v. Smith, 194 N.E.2d 70 (Ohio Ct. App. 1962). · cites it 10דThe determination of the question presented for decision herein primarily involves the construction of the provisions of Sections 2939.02, 2939.03 and 2313.38, Revised Code, providing: Section 2939.”
State v. Pitts, 2025-Ohio-3012. · cites it 3ד{¶ 7} On April 11, 2025, Pitts filed a second motion to dismiss, claiming his indictment was unlawful because the grand jury panel consisted of nine persons instead of fifteen in violation of R.C. 2939.02 and the indictment was signed by seven persons instead of twelve in…”
Bingham v. Haviland, No. 3:20-cv-01846, 2023 WL 6383684 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 29, 2023). · cites it 2ד6(A) is unconstitutional, in violation of Article I, Section 10, of the Ohio Constitution and R.C. § 2939.02. 2. The Trial Court erred by not suppressing the fruits of the tainted search warrant.”
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.