Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2949 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2949.22 (2026)

Method of execution of death sentence

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
November 21, 2001
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 362 - 124th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) Except as provided in division (C) of this section, a death sentence shall be executed by causing the application to the person, upon whom the sentence was imposed, of a lethal injection of a drug or combination of drugs of sufficient dosage to quickly and painlessly cause death. The application of the drug or combination of drugs shall be continued until the person is dead. The warden of the correctional institution in which the sentence is to be executed or another person selected by the director of rehabilitation and correction shall ensure that the death sentence is executed.

(B) A death sentence shall be executed within the walls of the state correctional institution designated by the director of rehabilitation and correction as the location for executions, within an enclosure to be prepared for that purpose, under the direction of the warden of the institution or, in the warden's absence, a deputy warden, and on the day designated by the judge passing sentence or otherwise designated by a court in the course of any appellate or postconviction proceedings. The enclosure shall exclude public view.

(C) If a person is sentenced to death, and if the execution of a death sentence by lethal injection has been determined to be unconstitutional, the death sentence shall be executed by using any different manner of execution prescribed by law subsequent to the effective date of this amendment instead of by causing the application to the person of a lethal injection of a drug or combination of drugs of sufficient dosage to quickly and painlessly cause death, provided that the subsequently prescribed different manner of execution has not been determined to be unconstitutional. The use of the subsequently prescribed different manner of execution shall be continued until the person is dead. The warden of the state correctional institution in which the sentence is to be executed or another person selected by the director of rehabilitation and correction shall ensure that the sentence of death is executed.

(D) No change in the law made by the amendment to this section that took effect on October 1, 1993, or by this amendment constitutes a declaration by or belief of the general assembly that execution of a death sentence by electrocution is a cruel and unusual punishment proscribed by the Ohio Constitution or the United States Constitution.

Last updated December 11, 2025 at 9:25 AM

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 50 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1994–2022 · leading case: O'Neal v. State, 2020 Ohio 506 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
O'Neal v. State, 2020 Ohio 506 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 22× “{¶ 30} R.C. 2949.22 governs execution of a court-ordered death sentence.”
Scott v. Houk, 2010 Ohio 5805 (Ohio 2010). · cites it 39× “R.C. 2949.22 {¶ 12} The dissent argues that although the Eighth Amendment may not bar Ohio’s new execution protocol, R.”
State v. Broom (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 1028 (Ohio 2016). · cites it 7× “The state cites R.C. 2949.22(A), which provides that “a death sentence shall be executed by causing the application to the person, upon whom the sentence was imposed, of a lethal injection of a drug or combination of drugs.”
Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008). · cites it 4× “Codified Laws § 23A-27A-32 (Supp. 2007); Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-23-114 (2006); Tex.”
State v. Bey, 709 N.E.2d 484 (Ohio 1999). · cites it 7× “Proposition of Law XVI In proposition of law XVI, Bey argues that the trial judge erred in sentencing Bey to death by electrocution because R.C. 2949.22 gives Bey a choice between death by lethal injection and death by electrocution.”
State v. Jackson (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 5488 (Ohio 2016). · cites it 4× “” R.C. 2949.22(A). He asserts that the state has a pattern and practice of noncompliance with R.”
Richard Wade Cooey, II v. Ted Strickland, Governor Terry J. Collins, Dir. E.C. Voorhies, Warden, 479 F.3d 412 (6th Cir. 2007). · cites it 3× “See Ohio Rev.Code § 2949.22(A)-(B) (2000). In 2001, Ohio made lethal injection the sole method of *417 execution.”
State v. Bey, 1999 Ohio 283 (Ohio 1999). · cites it 7× “Proposition of Law XVI {¶ 69} In proposition of law XVI, Bey argues that the trial judge erred in sentencing Bey to death by electrocution because R.C. 2949.22 gives Bey a choice between death by lethal injection and death by electrocution.”
Robert A. Buell v. Betty Mitchell, Warden, 274 F.3d 337 (6th Cir. 2001). · cites it 2× “Finally, Buell asserts that death by electrocution, as required under Ohio Rev.Code § 2949.22, violates the constitutional prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.”
In re Raymond Tibbetts, 869 F.3d 403 (6th Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “See Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2949.22 ; Cooey v. Strickland, 479 F.”
Phillips v. DeWine, 92 F. Supp. 3d 702 (S.D. Ohio 2015). · cites it 6× “ares, administers, uses, or tests any of the compounding equipment or components, the active pharmaceutical ingredients, the drugs or combination of drugs, the medical supplies, or the medical equipment used in the application of a lethal injection of a drug or combination of…”
In re Ohio Execution Protocol Litig., 235 F. Supp. 3d 892 (S.D. Ohio 2017). “, to adopt the firing squad as an alternative, need not be proposed by Eighth Amendment plaintiffs as an. available alternative. The Court is also aware that McGuire as a plaintiff in this case effectively presented the 500 mg midazolam Florida method as an alternative.”
Show all 50 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2949.22(A) — 14 cases
O'Neal v. State, 2020 Ohio 506 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “{¶ 30} R.C. 2949.22 governs execution of a court-ordered death sentence.”
State v. Jackson (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 5488 (Ohio 2016). “” R.C. 2949.22(A). He asserts that the state has a pattern and practice of noncompliance with R.”
State v. Broom (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 1028 (Ohio 2016). “The state cites R.C. 2949.22(A), which provides that “a death sentence shall be executed by causing the application to the person, upon whom the sentence was imposed, of a lethal injection of a drug or combination of drugs.”
Scott v. Houk, 2010 Ohio 5805 (Ohio 2010). “R.C. 2949.22 {¶ 12} The dissent argues that although the Eighth Amendment may not bar Ohio’s new execution protocol, R.”
Richard Wade Cooey, II v. Ted Strickland, Governor Terry J. Collins, Dir. E.C. Voorhies, Warden, 479 F.3d 412 (6th Cir. 2007). “See Ohio Rev.Code § 2949.22(A)-(B) (2000). In 2001, Ohio made lethal injection the sole method of *417 execution.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2949.22(B) — 4 cases
State v. Broom (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 1028 (Ohio 2016). “The state cites R.C. 2949.22(A), which provides that “a death sentence shall be executed by causing the application to the person, upon whom the sentence was imposed, of a lethal injection of a drug or combination of drugs.”
Robert A. Buell v. Betty Mitchell, Warden, 274 F.3d 337 (6th Cir. 2001). “Finally, Buell asserts that death by electrocution, as required under Ohio Rev.Code § 2949.22, violates the constitutional prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.”
Smith v. Anderson, 104 F. Supp. 2d 773 (S.D. Ohio 2000).
Scott v. Anderson, 58 F. Supp. 2d 767 (N.D. Ohio 1998).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2949.22(B)(1) — 6 cases
State v. Bey, 709 N.E.2d 484 (Ohio 1999). “Proposition of Law XVI In proposition of law XVI, Bey argues that the trial judge erred in sentencing Bey to death by electrocution because R.C. 2949.22 gives Bey a choice between death by lethal injection and death by electrocution.”
State v. Bays, 716 N.E.2d 1126 (Ohio 1999).
State v. Bey, 1999 Ohio 283 (Ohio 1999). “Proposition of Law XVI {¶ 69} In proposition of law XVI, Bey argues that the trial judge erred in sentencing Bey to death by electrocution because R.C. 2949.22 gives Bey a choice between death by lethal injection and death by electrocution.”
State v. Bays, 1999 Ohio 216 (Ohio 1999).
Mason v. Mitchell, 95 F. Supp. 2d 744 (N.D. Ohio 2000).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2949.22(C) — 3 cases
State v. Steffen, 639 N.E.2d 67 (Ohio 1994).
State v. Steffen, 1994 Ohio 111 (Ohio 1994).
Jones v. Bradshaw, 138 F. Supp. 3d 921 (N.D. Ohio 2015).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2949.22(E) — 1 case
Dawson v. State, 554 S.E.2d 137 (Ga. 2001).
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.