Go Syfert

Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2945.33 (2026)

Supervision of jury after case submitted to them

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Effective:

November 9, 1965

Latest Legislation:

House Bill 708 - 106th General Assembly

PDF:

Download Authenticated PDF

When a cause is finally submitted the jurors must be kept together in a convenient place under the charge of an officer until they agree upon a verdict, or are discharged by the court. The court, except in cases where the offense charged may be punishable by death, may permit the jurors to separate during the adjournment of court overnight, under proper cautions, or under supervision of an officer. Such officer shall not permit a communication to be made to them, nor make any himself except to ask if they have agreed upon a verdict, unless he does so by order of the court. Such officer shall not communicate to any person, before the verdict is delivered, any matter in relation to their deliberation. Upon the trial of any prosecution for misdemeanor, the court may permit the jury to separate during their deliberation, or upon adjournment of the court overnight.

In cases where the offense charged may be punished by death, after the case is finally submitted to the jury, the jurors shall be kept in charge of the proper officer and proper arrangements for their care and maintenance shall be made as under section 2945.31 of the Revised Code.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 27 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1956–2024 · leading case: State v. Maurer, 473 N.E.2d 768 (Ohio 1984).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Maurer, 473 N.E.2d 768 (Ohio 1984). · cites it 3× “He further asserts that R.C. 2945.33 and Crim. R. 24(G)(2)(c) require the court to sequester the jury during the interval of time between the guilt and penalty phases in capital cases.”

State v. Webster, 2021 Ohio 3218 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 6× “Pursuant to R.C. 2945.33: When a case is finally submitted the jurors must be kept together in a convenient place under the charge of an officer until they agree upon a verdict, or are discharged by the court.”

State v. Broom, 533 N.E.2d 682 (Ohio 1988). · cites it 2× “Q In his twenty-second proposition of law, appellant argues that R.C. 2945.33 and Crim. R. 24(G)(2)(c) 7 mandate that a jury remain sequestered between the conclusion of the guilt phase of the trial and the commencement of the penalty phase.”

State v. Davis, 584 N.E.2d 1192 (Ohio 1992). · cites it 3× “* * * ” R.C. 2945.33 3 and Crim.R. 24(G)(2)(c) 4 require that jurors in a capital case remain sequestered during sentencing deliberations.”

State v. Czajka, 656 N.E.2d 9 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 4× “Since prejudice is presumed by R.C. 2945.33, appellant argues the trial court erred when it failed to grant a mistrial and/or reversal of the convictions.”

State v. Sanders, 750 N.E.2d 90 (Ohio 2001). “Frequent breaks would have prolonged the trial and disrupted the presentation of evidence.”

State v. Schiebel, 564 N.E.2d 54 (Ohio 1990). “” Such a communication is precluded by statute and falls within an exception to the aliunde rule incorporated in Evid.”

State v. Jenkins, 473 N.E.2d 264 (Ohio 1984). “However, in an effort to minimize the risk of jury contamination, the court herein directed that the jury remain under loose court supervision between the two trial segments.”

State v. Elmore, 857 N.E.2d 547 (Ohio 2006). “” Nor is there any evidence that this juror rushed the other jurors during their deliberations. There is also no protected class of jurors who have the right to smoke during a trial.”

State v. Marshall, 2024 Ohio 4445 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 3× “{¶ 23} Appellant argues that R.C. 2945.33 was violated, a statute governing the keeping and conduct of a jury after a case is submitted to them.”

Sheppard v. Maxwell, 231 F. Supp. 37 (S.D. Ohio 1964). · cites it 6× “7083-86)” In its opinion, the Supreme Court of Ohio, regarding this matter, stated : “Defendant contends that he was prejudiced in this case by the actions of two officers of the court, in whose charge the jury was committed during its deliberations, in permitting some members…”

State v. Sanders, 2001 Ohio 189 (Ohio 2001). “{¶ 31} Moreover, the trial court was under no obligation to accommodate the juror with smoking breaks, as Sanders suggests.”

Show all 27 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.