Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2939
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2939.14 (2026)

Witness refusing to testify

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 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
 

If a witness before a grand jury refuses to answer an interrogatory, the court of common pleas shall be informed in writing, in which such interrogatory shall be stated, with the excuse for the refusal given by the witness. The court shall determine whether the witness is required to answer, and the grand jury shall be forthwith informed of such decision.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1964–1993 · leading case: State v. Granchay, 204 N.E.2d 562 (Ohio Ct. App. 1964).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Granchay, 204 N.E.2d 562 (Ohio Ct. App. 1964). · cites it 2× “) *308 to be informed of the interrogatories, the refusal and the excuse given, all pursuant to Section 2939.14, Revised Code. In each case the judge examined the questions, found each one to be a proper question for answer and so informed the grand jury.”
State ex rel. Buchman v. Stokes, 521 N.E.2d 515 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1987). “1 We note that the prosecution failed to follow the procedure mandated by R.C. 2939.14. We understand that in a prior hearing this court agreed that the failure would not cause the writ to issue on purely procedural grounds, and it does not.”
In re Grand Jury Witness Subpoena of Abraham, 634 N.E.2d 667 (Ohio Ct. App. 11th Dist. 1993). “A review of the record reveals that this issue was discussed at the hearing, wherein appellee indicated that appellant, in a prepared statement, refused to respond to any questions pertaining to Fiorenzo. At that time, the special prosecutor indicated that he remained willing to…”
State v. Prato, 206 N.E.2d 917 (Ohio Ct. App. 1965). · cites it 2× “The foreman of the grand jury requested the prosecuting attorney to present a written list of the questions to the trial court, in accordance with Section 2939.14, Eevised Code, for a determination as to the propriety of the questions being asked.”
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.