(A) The prosecuting attorney, the convict, and the convict's counsel shall attend an inquiry commenced as provided in section 2949.28 of the Revised Code. The prosecuting attorney and the convict or the convict's counsel may produce, examine, and cross-examine witnesses, and all findings shall be in writing signed by the judge. If it is found that the convict is not insane, the sentence shall be executed at the time previously appointed, unless that time has passed pending completion of the inquiry, in which case the judge conducting the inquiry, if authorized by the supreme court, shall appoint a time for execution of the sentence to be effective fifteen days from the date of the entry of the judge's findings in the inquiry.
(B) If it is found that the convict is insane and if authorized by the supreme court, the judge shall continue any stay of execution of the sentence previously issued, order the convict to be confined in the area at which other convicts sentenced to death are confined or in a maximum security medical or psychiatric facility operated by the department of rehabilitation and correction, and order treatment of the convict. Thereafter, the court at any time may conduct and, on motion of the prosecuting attorney, shall conduct a hearing pursuant to division (A) of this section to continue the inquiry into the convict's insanity and, as provided in section 2949.28 of the Revised Code, may appoint one or more psychiatrists or psychologists to make a further examination of the convict and to submit a report to the court. If the court finds at the hearing that the convict is not insane and if the time previously appointed for execution of the sentence has not passed, the sentence shall be executed at the previously appointed time. If the court finds at the hearing that the convict is not insane and if the time previously appointed for execution of the sentence has passed, the judge who conducts the hearing, if authorized by the supreme court, shall appoint a new time for execution of the sentence to be effective fifteen days from the date of the entry of the judge's findings in the hearing.
(C) In all proceedings under this section, the convict is presumed not to be insane, and the court shall find that the convict is not insane unless the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the convict is insane.
(D) Proceedings for inquiry into the insanity of any convict sentenced to death shall be exclusively pursuant to this section, section 2949.28 of the Revised Code, and the Rules of Evidence. Neither Chapter 5122. or 5123. of the Revised Code nor any other provision of the Revised Code nor any other rule concerning persons with mental illnesses, persons with intellectual disabilities, or insane persons applies to any proceeding for inquiry into the insanity of any convict sentenced to death.
Last updated March 10, 2023 at 11:23 AM
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases, 1969–2012 · leading case: State v. Scott, 748 N.E.2d 11 (Ohio 2001).
State v. Scott, 748 N.E.2d 11 (Ohio 2001). · cites it 14דMoreover, R.C. 2949.29 states that the burden of proof to challenge competency is on the defense.”
Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986). · cites it 2ד§ 15A-1001 (1983); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2949.29 (1982); Okla.”
State v. Scott, 2001 Ohio 148 (Ohio 2001). · cites it 14ד{¶ 19} Moreover, R.C. 2949.29 states that the burden of proof to challenge competency is on the defense.”
State v. Awkal, 2012 Ohio 3970 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 4ד{¶10} If the defendant receives the ordered medical treatment, and the trial court refuses to conduct a hearing pursuant to R.C. 2949.29 to reevaluate the defendant’s competency, the state could file a writ of mandamus before this court or the Ohio Supreme Court.”
State v. Brooks, 2011 Ohio 5877 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 5דThe trial court also allowed the submission of a significant amount of documentary evidence, which included the original trial transcripts, Brooks’s post-trial correspondence, numerous psychiatric or psychological reports, and telephone recordings.”
Van Tran v. State, 6 S.W.3d 257 (Tenn. 1999). · cites it 2ד1998); Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 2949.29(c) (Anderson Supp.”
Thompson v. State, 134 S.W.3d 168 (Tenn. 2004). · cites it 2דGiven these compelling rationales, requiring a prisoner to make a substantial threshold showing is both necessary and appropriate. Indeed, as this Court emphasized in Van Tran : [w]ithout a substantial threshold requirement, the eleventh hour petitions asserting insanity would…”
In Re Keaton, 250 N.E.2d 901 (Ohio Ct. App. 1969). · cites it 12ד” Section 2949.29: “In addition to the warden or sheriff, the judge of the Court of Common Pleas, clerk of the Court of Common Pleas, and prosecuting attorney shall attend the inquiry *258 commenced as provided in Section 2949.”
Coe v. Bell, 89 F. Supp. 2d 922 (M.D. Tenn. 2000). “However, as the majority in Van Tran pointed out, many states place the burden of proof on the individual sentenced to death and require him or her to prove incompetency by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Bedford v. State, 957 N.E.2d 336 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2דR.C. 2949.29(C); Scott, 92 Ohio St.3d at 4 , 748 N.”
State v. Scott, 91 Ohio St. 3d 1237 (Ohio 2001). “28(B)(3) contemplates prompt resolution of competency proceedings. The statute requires the trial court’s final decision on competency “no later than sixty days from the date of the notice.”
State v. Scott, 2001 Ohio 61 (Ohio 2001). “” Further, if the date set for execution passes, R.C. 2949.29(B) accelerates appointment of a new execution date “effective fifteen days from the date of the entry of the judge’s findings in the hearing” if a convict is found competent to be executed.”
State v. Awkal, 2012 Ohio 3970 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “{¶10} If the defendant receives the ordered medical treatment, and the trial court refuses to conduct a hearing pursuant to R.C. 2949.29 to reevaluate the defendant’s competency, the state could file a writ of mandamus before this court or the Ohio Supreme Court.”
State v. Scott, 91 Ohio St. 3d 1237 (Ohio 2001). “28(B)(3) contemplates prompt resolution of competency proceedings. The statute requires the trial court’s final decision on competency “no later than sixty days from the date of the notice.”
State v. Scott, 2001 Ohio 61 (Ohio 2001). “” Further, if the date set for execution passes, R.C. 2949.29(B) accelerates appointment of a new execution date “effective fifteen days from the date of the entry of the judge’s findings in the hearing” if a convict is found competent to be executed.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2949.29(C) — 4 cases
State v. Scott, 748 N.E.2d 11 (Ohio 2001). “Moreover, R.C. 2949.29 states that the burden of proof to challenge competency is on the defense.”
State v. Scott, 2001 Ohio 148 (Ohio 2001). “{¶ 19} Moreover, R.C. 2949.29 states that the burden of proof to challenge competency is on the defense.”
State v. Brooks, 2011 Ohio 5877 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). “The trial court also allowed the submission of a significant amount of documentary evidence, which included the original trial transcripts, Brooks’s post-trial correspondence, numerous psychiatric or psychological reports, and telephone recordings.”
Bedford v. State, 957 N.E.2d 336 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). “R.C. 2949.29(C); Scott, 92 Ohio St.3d at 4 , 748 N.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2949.29(D) — 1 case
Bedford v. State, 957 N.E.2d 336 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). “R.C. 2949.29(C); Scott, 92 Ohio St.3d at 4 , 748 N.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2949.29(c) — 1 case
Van Tran v. State, 6 S.W.3d 257 (Tenn. 1999). “1998); Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 2949.29(c) (Anderson Supp.”
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.