Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2945 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2945.42 (2026)

Competency of witnesses

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
August 9, 2024
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 281 (GA 134), House Bill 161 (GA 135)
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

No person is disqualified as a witness in a criminal prosecution by reason of the person's interest in the prosecution as a party or otherwise or by reason of the person's conviction of crime. Husband and wife are competent witnesses to testify in behalf of each other in all criminal prosecutions and to testify against each other in all actions, prosecutions, and proceedings for personal injury of either by the other, bigamy, or failure to provide for, neglect of, or cruelty to their children under eighteen years of age or their child with a mental or physical disability under twenty-one years of age. A spouse may testify against his or her spouse in a prosecution under a provision of sections 2903.11 to 2903.13, 2919.21, 2919.22, or 2919.25 of the Revised Code for cruelty to, neglect of, or abandonment of such spouse, in a prosecution against his or her spouse under section 2903.211 or 2911.211 of the Revised Code for the commission of the offense against the spouse who is testifying, in a prosecution under section 2919.27 of the Revised Code involving a protection order issued or consent agreement approved pursuant to section 2919.26 or 3113.31 of the Revised Code for the commission of the offense against the spouse who is testifying, or in a prosecution under section 2907.02 of the Revised Code for the commission of rape, under section 2907.03 of the Revised Code for the commission of sexual battery, under section 2907.04 of the Revised Code for the commission of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, under section 2907.05 of the Revised Code for the commission of gross sexual imposition, under section 2907.06 of the Revised Code for the commission of sexual imposition, under division (B)(2) of section 2907.07 of the Revised Code for the commission of importuning, or under former section 2907.12 of the Revised Code for felonious sexual penetration against such spouse in a case in which the offense can be committed against a spouse. Such interest, conviction, or relationship may be shown for the purpose of affecting the credibility of the witness. Husband or wife shall not testify concerning a communication made by one to the other, or act done by either in the presence of the other, during coverture, unless the communication was made or act done in the known presence or hearing of a third person competent to be a witness, or in case of personal injury by either the husband or wife to the other, or rape or the former offense of felonious sexual penetration in a case in which the offense can be committed against a spouse, or sexual battery, unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, gross sexual imposition, sexual imposition, importuning, public indecency, or bigamy, or failure to provide for, or neglect or cruelty of either to their children under eighteen years of age or their child with a mental or physical disability under twenty-one years of age, violation of a protection order or consent agreement, or neglect or abandonment of a spouse under a provision of those sections. The presence or whereabouts of the husband or wife is not an act under this section. The rule is the same if the marital relation has ceased to exist.

The Legislative Service Commission presents the text of this section as a composite of the section as amended by multiple acts of the General Assembly. This presentation recognizes the principle stated in R.C. 1.52(B) that amendments are to be harmonized if reasonably capable of simultaneous operation.

Last updated June 6, 2024 at 11:10 AM

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 75 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1955–2023 · leading case: State v. Perez, 2009 Ohio 6179 (Ohio 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Perez, 2009 Ohio 6179 (Ohio 2009). · cites it 24× “He contends both that it violated the marital-communications privilege embodied in R.C. 2945.42 and that it denied him due process.”
State v. Jones, 2012 Ohio 5677 (Ohio 2012). · cites it 24× “In light of the dissent’s mischaracterization of the presentation of witnesses, we are compelled to point out that although we address Delores’s testimony first, she was the seventh witness to 27 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Spousal privilege {¶ 113} Spousal privilege is codified at…”
State v. Rahman, 492 N.E.2d 401 (Ohio 1986). · cites it 15× “Appellant first contends that, pursuant to R.C. 2945.42, 1 his wife was not competent to testify against him at trial.”
State v. Mowery, 438 N.E.2d 897 (Ohio 1982). · cites it 18× “The issue certified to this court is whether R.C. 2945.42 and Evid. R. 601(B) allow a spouse to be a competent witness in a criminal prosecution against the other spouse as to a crime against a third person, not a child of either spouse, where the crime is committed in the…”
State v. Baker, 739 N.E.2d 819 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 7× “Appellant argues that the indictment was fatally tainted because it was obtained through Lori’s testimony in violation of the spousal privilege as set forth in R.C. 2945.42 (this privilege is discussed under appellant’s second assignment of error).”
Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 (1980). · cites it 2× “1977); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2945.42 (Supp. 1979); Pa.”
State v. Brown, 873 N.E.2d 858 (Ohio 2007). · cites it 2× “The general rule of spousal privilege is set forth in R.C. 2945.42 and provides that a “[hjusband or wife shall not testify concerning a communication made by one to the other, or act done by either in the presence of the other, during coverture, unless the communication was…”
State v. Yarbrough, 95 Ohio St. 3d 227 (Ohio 2002). “A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability, whether offered to exculpate or inculpate the accused, is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.” {¶ 43} Appellant argues that Calvin Davis’s…”
State v. Yarbrough, 2002 Ohio 2126 (Ohio 2002). “A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability, whether offered to exculpate or inculpate the accused, is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.” {¶43} Appellant argues that Calvin Davis’s…”
State v. Henness, 679 N.E.2d 686 (Ohio 1997). · cites it 2× “Marital Privilege R.C. 2945.42 creates a privilege for spousal acts and communications: “ * * * Husband or wife shall not testify concerning a communication made by one to the other, or act done by either in the presence of the other, during coverture, unless the communication…”
State v. Bryant, 564 N.E.2d 709 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 8× “However, the trial court held that Peggy Bryant was barred from testifying against her husband because he had invoked the “privilege” accorded him by R.C. 2945.42. Preserved by Evid. R. 501 as the rule specifically governing spousal privilege, R.”
State v. Rider, 2022 Ohio 1964 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 3× “601(B) and it must not be privileged under R.C. 2945.42. In this case, the trial court correctly determined that Rodney Sr.”
Show all 75 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.