The judge of the trial court shall examine the prospective jurors under oath or upon affirmation as to their qualifications to serve as fair and impartial jurors, but he shall permit reasonable examination of such jurors by the prosecuting attorney and by the defendant or his counsel.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 44
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1956–2026 · leading case: State v. Adams (Slip Opinion), 2015 Ohio 3954 (Ohio 2015).
State v. Adams (Slip Opinion), 2015 Ohio 3954 (Ohio 2015). · cites it 3דThe small-panel sessions provided the only opportunity to question prospective jurors about the death penalty, their exposure to pretrial publicity, and their concerns about sequestration.”
State v. Trimble, 2009 Ohio 2961 (Ohio 2009). · cites it 2ד{¶ 92} R.C. 2945.27 and Crim.R. 24(B) require that counsel be afforded an opportunity to voir dire prospective jurors or supplement the court’s voir dire examination.”
State v. Jackson, 836 N.E.2d 1173 (Ohio 2005). · cites it 2דAccord R.C. 2945.27. But restrictions on voir dire have generally been upheld.”
State v. Ford (Slip Opinion), 2019 Ohio 4539 (Ohio 2019). · cites it 2ד24 and R.C. 2945.27 afford both the prosecution and defense the opportunity to conduct reasonable voir dire.”
State v. LaMar, 767 N.E.2d 166 (Ohio 2002). “At one point, the trial court fined one of LaMar’s attorneys $50 after the attorney, in apparent frustration, complained (in the presence of the jury venire) that he was “not getting a fair trial in this case” if he was not allowed to delve into certain- areas with the potential…”
State v. Leonard, 104 Ohio St. 3d 54 (Ohio 2004). “27 affords the prosecution and defense the opportunity to conduct a reasonable examination of prospective jurors, * * * the trial court reserves the right and responsibility to control the proceedings of a criminal trial pursuant to R.”
State v. LaMar, 2002 Ohio 2128 (Ohio 2002). “At one point, the trial court fined one of LaMar’s attorneys $50 after the attorney, in apparent frustration, complained (in the presence of the jury venire) that he was “not getting a fair trial in this case” if he was not allowed to delve into certain areas with the potential…”
State v. Gross, 2002 Ohio 5524 (Ohio 2002). “03, and must *130 limit the trial to relevant and material matters with a view toward the expeditious and effective ascertainment of truth’ ”).”
State v. Williams, 313 N.E.2d 859 (Ohio 1974). · cites it 6דWhere the trial court fails to comply with the requirement of Section 2945.27, Revised Code, that oaths or affirmations be administered to prospective jurors before their examination on voir dire, such failure will not entitle defendant to a new trial if defendant and his…”
State v. Getsy, 702 N.E.2d 866 (Ohio 1998). “27 affords the prosecution and defense the opportunity to conduct a reasonable examination of prospective jurors, * * * the trial court reserves the right and responsibility to control the proceedings of a criminal trial pursuant to R.C. 2945.03, and must limit the trial to…”
State v. Mason, 694 N.E.2d 932 (Ohio 1998). “Before trial, each juror was asked to complete a forty-one-question form, specifically designed for this case, which asked questions as to their background, experiences, and attitudes.”
State v. Cunningham, 2004 Ohio 7007 (Ohio 2004). “Accord R.C. 2945.27. Restrictions on voir dire have generally been upheld, and absent a clear abuse of discretion, prejudicial error cannot be assigned to the examination of the venire.”
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.