(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, 146 N.E.3d 605.
O'Neal v. State, 2020-Ohio-506, 146 N.E.3d 605. · cites it 22ד{¶ 30} R.C. 2949.22 governs execution of a court-ordered death sentence.”
Scott v. Houk, 2010-Ohio-5805, 939 N.E.2d 835. · cites it 39דR.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, 51 N.E.3d 620. · cites it 7דThe 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 4דCodified 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 7דProposition 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, 73 N.E.3d 414. · cites it 4ד” 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, 479 F.3d 412 (6th Cir. 2007). · cites it 3דSee Ohio Rev.Code § 2949.22(A)-(B) (2000). In 2001, Ohio made lethal injection the sole method of *417 execution.”
State v. Bey, 85 Ohio St. 3d 487 (1999). · cites it 7דProposition 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, 274 F.3d 337 (6th Cir. 2001). · cites it 2דFinally, 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 2דSee 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 6דares, 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.”
O'Neal v. State, 2020-Ohio-506, 146 N.E.3d 605. “{¶ 30} R.C. 2949.22 governs execution of a court-ordered death sentence.”
State v. Jackson (Slip Opinion), 2016-Ohio-5488, 73 N.E.3d 414. “” 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, 51 N.E.3d 620. “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, 939 N.E.2d 835. “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, 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, 51 N.E.3d 620. “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, 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.”
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. Bey, 85 Ohio St. 3d 487 (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.”
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.