As Introduced

136th General Assembly

Regular Session H. B. No. 933

2025-2026

Representative Williams

To amend section 2945.21 of the Revised Code to enact the Fair Trial Protection Act to create a process for objecting to a peremptory challenge on the basis that the challenge is based on the prospective juror's race, color, religion, sex, military status, national origin, disability, age, or ancestry.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF OHIO:

Section 1. That section 2945.21 of the Revised Code be amended to read as follows:

Sec. 2945.21. (A)(1) In criminal cases in which there is only one defendant, each party, in addition to the challenges for cause authorized by law, may peremptorily challenge three of the jurors in misdemeanor cases and four of the jurors in felony cases other than capital cases. If there is more than one defendant, each defendant may peremptorily challenge the same number of jurors as if hethe defendant were the sole defendant.

(2) Notwithstanding Criminal Rule 24, in capital cases in which there is only one defendant, each party, in addition to the challenges for cause authorized by law, may peremptorily challenge twelve of the jurors. If there is more than one defendant, each defendant may peremptorily challenge the same number of jurors as if hethe defendant were the sole defendant.

(3) In any case in which there are multiple defendants, the prosecuting attorney may peremptorily challenge a number of jurors equal to the total number of peremptory challenges allowed to all of the defendants.

(B) If any indictments, informations, or complaints are consolidated for trial, the consolidated cases shall be considered, for purposes of exercising peremptory challenges, as though the defendants or offenses had been joined in the same indictment, information, or complaint.

(C)(C)(1) No party shall exercise a peremptory challenge to remove a prospective juror based on the juror's race, color, religion, sex, military status, national origin, disability, age, or ancestry.

(2) If a party objects to a peremptory challenge on the basis that the challenge is based on the juror's membership in a protected class as prohibited by division (C)(1) of this section, the court shall require the party exercising the peremptory challenge to state, on the record, a clear, reasonably specific, and neutral explanation for challenging the juror.

(D) Upon receiving an objection under division (C)(2) of this section and the explanation required under division (C)(2) of this section, the court shall evaluate the explanation on the record and shall not allow the peremptory challenge unless it finds both of the following:

(1) That it is more likely than not that the peremptory challenge was exercised for reasons unrelated to the juror's membership in a protected class;

(2) That the articulated interest of the party exercising the peremptory challenge substantially outweighs the interest in a fair trial by an impartial jury drawn from a representative cross-section of the community.

(E) In making a determination under division (D) of this section, the court shall consider all relevant circumstances, including all of the following:

(1) Whether similarly situated potential jurors who are not members of the same protected class as the juror being challenged were also challenged;

(2) Whether the reason given for the challenge under division (C)(2) of this section applies to other potential jurors who were not challenged;

(3) The relationship between the reason given for the challenge under division (C)(2) of this section to the facts of the case;

(4) Any pattern of challenges against members of the same protected class as the juror being challenged;

(5) The demeanor and credibility of the party exercising the challenge.

(F) If the court determines that a peremptory challenge violates division (C)(1) of this section, the court shall deny the challenge and seat the juror or, if the juror has already been excused, the court shall take appropriate remedial action, including declaring a mistrial, if necessary.

(G) If a peremptory challenge is the subject of an appeal for violating division (C)(1) of this section, the court hearing the appeal shall conduct a de novo review of the legal conclusions of the trial court and shall only reverse the decision of the trial court on factual findings if those findings are clearly erroneous. Any appeal from a judgment based on a violation of division (C)(1) of this section shall proceed with heightened scrutiny to ensure that the defendant's right to a fair trial is protected.

(H) The exercise of peremptory challenges authorized by this section shall be in accordance with the procedures of Criminal Rule 24.

Section 2. That existing section 2945.21 of the Revised Code is hereby repealed.

Section 3. This act shall be known as the Fair Trial Protection Act.