Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2945.16 (2026)

View of the premises - expenses of view

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

When it is proper for the jurors to have a view of the place at which a material fact occurred, the trial court may order them to be conducted in a body, under the charge of the sheriff or other officer, to such place, which shall be shown to them by a person designated by the court. While the jurors are absent on such view no person other than such officer and such person so appointed, shall speak to them on any subject connected with the trial. The accused has the right to attend such view by the jury, but may waive this right.

The expense of such view as approved by the court shall be taxed as other costs in the case.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 34 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1963–2026 · leading case: State v. Drummond, 854 N.E.2d 1038 (Ohio 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Drummond, 854 N.E.2d 1038 (Ohio 2006). · cites it 3× “{¶ 62} R.C. 2945.16 provides, “When it is proper for the jurors to have a view of the place at which a material fact occurred, the trial court may order them to be conducted in a body, under the charge of the sheriff or other officer, to such place, which shall be shown to them…”
State v. Cassano, 96 Ohio St. 3d 94 (2002). · cites it 2× “The statute, R.C. 2945.16, specifies that “[t]he accused has the right to attend such view by the jury * * * .”
State v. Cassano, 2002-Ohio-3751, 772 N.E.2d 81. · cites it 2× “The statute, R.C. 2945.16, specifies that “[t]he accused has the right to attend such view by the jury * * *.”
State v. Spaulding (Slip Opinion), 2016-Ohio-8126. “” Under 26 January Term, 2016 Ohio law, defendants have a waivable right to attend a jury view, R.C. 2945.16, but we have not recognized any concomitant constitutional guarantee.”
State v. Lundgren, 653 N.E.2d 304 (Ohio 1995). · cites it 2× “” A rebuttal witness confirmed that Lundgren had planned an armed attack on the temple.”
State v. Hughkeith, 2023-Ohio-1217, 212 N.E.3d 1147. · cites it 2× “” R.C. 2945.16 authorizes a trial court to allow the jury to view the place at which a material fact occurred.”
State v. Were, 2008 Ohio 2762 (2008). “” {¶ 95} R.C. 2945.16 provides: “When it is proper for the jurors to have a view of the place at which a material fact occurred, the trial court may order them to be conducted in a body * * * to such place, which shall be shown to them by a person designated by the court.”
State v. Hanna, 95 Ohio St. 3d 285 (2002). “Appellant claims a jury view was necessary to show the jurors “the size and shape of the cell, the lighting conditions in the cell, and the positioning of Peter Copas at the time of the assault” so that the jury could see “how difficult it would be for James Hanna to…”
State v. Hanna, 2002-Ohio-2221, 767 N.E.2d 678. “Appellant claims a jury view was necessary to show the jurors “the size and shape of the cell, the lighting conditions in the cell, and the positioning of Peter Copas at the time of the assault” 8 January Term, 2002 so that the jury could see “how difficult it would be for James…”
State v. Hopfer, 679 N.E.2d 321 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1996). “The relevant statute pertaining to a jury view reads as follows: “When it is proper for the jurors to have a view of the place at which a material fact occurred, the trial court may order them to be conducted in a body, under the charge of the sheriff or other officer, to such…”
State v. Richey, 595 N.E.2d 915 (Ohio 1992). “However, the trial court asked counsel before the visit, “Do you have any problem waiving the presence of the court reporter?” The prosecutor said he *367 did not, and defense counsel said nothing.”
State v. Pigott, 197 N.E.2d 911 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1964). · cites it 8× “The view by the jury of the premises of like and similar acts of the defendant was in violation of Section 2945.16, Revised Code. *339 “2. The view by the jury of the premises of like and similar acts of the defendant was intended to unduly inflame the minds of the jury and was…”
Show all 34 citing cases →
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.