Notes of Decisions
Cited in
13
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1989–2025 · leading case:
State v. Brown, 100 Ohio St. 3d 51 (Ohio 2003).
State v. Brown, 100 Ohio St. 3d 51 (Ohio 2003).
· cites it 2× “{¶ 41} R.C. 2945.77 and Crim.R. 31(D) provide for the polling of the jury to determine whether there is a unanimous verdict.”
State v. Brumback, 671 N.E.2d 1064 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “R.C. 2945.77 and Crim.R. 31(D) provide for the polling of the jury after the verdict to ascertain whether there is a unanimous verdict.”
Keener v. Jeld-Wen, Inc., 206 P.3d 403 (Cal. 2009).
“”]; Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2945.77 [“If one of the jurors upon being polled declare[s] that said verdict is not his verdict, the jury must further deliberate upon the case.”
State v. Green, 585 N.E.2d 990 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 3× “" In addition, R.C. 2945.77, which is a codification of Crim.”
State v. Hunter, 2016 Ohio 123 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “” R.C. 2945.77. Similarly, Crim.R. 31(D) states that “[w]hen a verdict is returned and before it is accepted the jury shall be polled at the request of any party or upon the court's own motion.”
State v. Vulgamore, 2021 Ohio 3147 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 3× “Do you so attest that it is your verdict at this time?” The trial court addressed each juror as follows: “Is this your signature on these verdict forms?” Thereafter, the trial court followed up with, “Is this your verdict?” Although acknowledging that R.C. 2945.77 and Crim.R.…”
City of Cleveland v. Walters, 648 N.E.2d 37 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 3× “Specifically, appellant argues not only does R.C. 2945.77 mandate the trial court to order further deliberations by the jury in this situation, but also that contrary to the trial court’s assertions, a manifest necessity to declare a mistrial did not exist.”
State v. Hope, 2019 Ohio 2174 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).
“” R.C. 2945.77 provides that “the jury may be polled at the request of either the prosecuting attorney or the defendant.”
State v. Villani, 2019 Ohio 1831 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).
“R.C. 2945.77 and Crim.R. 31(D) allow the court to poll the jurors at the request of any party to ensure that the verdict is truly unanimous.”
State v. Bertram, 2022 Ohio 2488 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 2× “Instead, R.C. 2945.77 requires the jury to deliberate further if a juror declares that the verdict is not his own.”
State v. Carmack, 572 N.E.2d 794 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 2× “” R.C. 2945.77 reads: “When the jurors agree upon their verdict, they must be conducted into court by the officer having them in charge.”
State v. Goodwin, 2013 Ohio 4591 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “In the event a juror declares that a verdict is not his own, the court may direct further deliberations or discharge the jury, per Crim.R. 31(D). R.C. 2945.77 requires the jury to deliberate further if a juror contradicts his own verdict.”
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.