(A)(1) In criminal cases in which there is only one defendant, each party, in addition to the challenges for cause authorized by law, may peremptorily challenge three of the jurors in misdemeanor cases and four of the jurors in felony cases other than capital cases. If there is more than one defendant, each defendant may peremptorily challenge the same number of jurors as if he were the sole defendant.
(2) Notwithstanding Criminal Rule 24, in capital cases in which there is only one defendant, each party, in addition to the challenges for cause authorized by law, may peremptorily challenge twelve of the jurors. If there is more than one defendant, each defendant may peremptorily challenge the same number of jurors as if he were the sole defendant.
(3) In any case in which there are multiple defendants, the prosecuting attorney may peremptorily challenge a number of jurors equal to the total number of peremptory challenges allowed to all of the defendants.
(B) If any indictments, informations, or complaints are consolidated for trial, the consolidated cases shall be considered, for purposes of exercising peremptory challenges, as though the defendants or offenses had been joined in the same indictment, information, or complaint.
(C) The exercise of peremptory challenges authorized by this section shall be in accordance with the procedures of Criminal Rule 24.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29
cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1955–2026 · leading case: State v. Jones (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-3051, 156 N.E.3d 872.
State v. Jones (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-3051, 156 N.E.3d 872. · cites it 2דAccordingly, while a trial court’s good- faith misallocation of peremptory strikes is an error, the error does not cause a fundamental constitutional defect within the framework of the trial-court proceedings that should be classified as structural error.”
State v. Greer, 530 N.E.2d 382 (Ohio 1988). · cites it 3ד24(C) and R.C. 2945.21 (A)(2) so as to avoid confusion in the trial courts of Ohio.”
Havel v. Villa St. Joseph, 2012-Ohio-552, 131 Ohio St. 3d 235. · cites it 2ד2d 382 (1988), we considered the interplay between R.C. 2945.21(A)(2), which allowed a defendant to exercise 12 peremptory challenges during voir dire, and Crim.”
State v. Vrabel, 99 Ohio St. 3d 184 (2003). “Appellant notes that R.C. 2945.21(A)(2) authorizes 12 peremptory challenges, and therefore he has a substantive right to that number.”
State v. Roy, 2014-Ohio-5186. · cites it 2ד06 ARE ALLIED OFFENSES PURSUANT TO R.C. §2945.21. 31 {¶79} In his fourth assignment of error, Roy argues that the trial court erred by sentencing him to allied offenses of similar import.”
State v. James, 2015-Ohio-4987. “The Supreme Court interpreted this language to mean that “a trial court is prohibited from imposing individual sentences for counts that constitute allied offenses of similar import.”
State v. Sheppard, 128 N.E.2d 471 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1955). · cites it 2דAs is provided by Section 2945.21, Revised Code, the state in a homicide case where there is but one defendant is entitled to six such peremptory challenges and the defendant a like number, so that when the jury was sworn the defendant left the right to one peremptory challenge…”
State v. Miller, 2023-Ohio-1141. “21 is “clear that it is the state that chooses which of the allied offenses to pursue at sentencing * * *”; “[w]hen the state elects which of the two allied offenses to seek sentencing for, the court must accept the state’s choice and merge the crimes into a single conviction…”
State v. Smith, 2020-Ohio-3516. “Smith also challenges the imposition of his sentences, asserting that the trial court failed to consider the purposes and principles of sentencing pursuant to R.C. 2929.11 and relevant sentencing factors under R.”
State v. Ramunas, 2022-Ohio-4199, 219 N.E.3d 884. “306 , and in this court’s early R.C. 2945.21 precedent: that is, if “the commission of one offense will necessarily result in commission of the other, then the offenses are allied offenses of similar import,” State v.”
Adams v. Bradshaw, 484 F. Supp. 2d 753 (N.D. Ohio 2007). “14 BECAUSE “DEATH-QUALIFIED” JURIES ARE MORE CONVICTION-PRONE THAN OTHER CRIMINAL JURIES, AND GIVEN THE NEED TO INSURE RELIABILITY IN THE PROCESS OF DECIDING WHETHER A CAPITAL DEFENDANT SHOULD RECEIVE THE DEATH PENALTY, THE NUMBER OF PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES IN A CAPITAL CASE IS…”
State v. Henry, 446 N.E.2d 436 (Ohio 1983). “24(C) and R.C. 2945.21, peremptory challenges; Crim.”
Havel v. Villa St. Joseph, 2012-Ohio-552, 131 Ohio St. 3d 235. “2d 382 (1988), we considered the interplay between R.C. 2945.21(A)(2), which allowed a defendant to exercise 12 peremptory challenges during voir dire, and Crim.”
State v. Vrabel, 99 Ohio St. 3d 184 (2003). “Appellant notes that R.C. 2945.21(A)(2) authorizes 12 peremptory challenges, and therefore he has a substantive right to that number.”
State v. Greer, 530 N.E.2d 382 (Ohio 1988). “24(C) and R.C. 2945.21 (A)(2) so as to avoid confusion in the trial courts of Ohio.”
Adams v. Bradshaw, 484 F. Supp. 2d 753 (N.D. Ohio 2007). “14 BECAUSE “DEATH-QUALIFIED” JURIES ARE MORE CONVICTION-PRONE THAN OTHER CRIMINAL JURIES, AND GIVEN THE NEED TO INSURE RELIABILITY IN THE PROCESS OF DECIDING WHETHER A CAPITAL DEFENDANT SHOULD RECEIVE THE DEATH PENALTY, THE NUMBER OF PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES IN A CAPITAL CASE IS…”
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.