Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 1531
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 1531.99 (2026)

Penalty

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(A) Whoever violates section 1531.02 of the Revised Code, or any division rule, other than a rule adopted under section 1531.25 of the Revised Code, is guilty of a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.

(B) Whoever violates section 1531.02 of the Revised Code concerning the taking or possession of deer or violates division (K) of section 1531.06 or section 1531.07 or 1531.29 of the Revised Code is guilty of a misdemeanor of the third degree on a first offense; on each subsequent offense, that person is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree.

(C) Whoever violates section 1531.25 of the Revised Code is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree.

(D) Whoever violates section 1531.02 of the Revised Code concerning the buying, selling, or offering for sale of any wild animals or parts of wild animals, the minimum value of which animals or parts, in the aggregate, is one thousand dollars or more as established under section 1531.201 of the Revised Code, is guilty of a felony of the fifth degree.

(E) A court that imposes sentence for a violation of any section of this chapter governing the holding, taking, buying, selling, or possession of wild animals, including, without limitation, section 1531.11 of the Revised Code, may require the person who is convicted of or pleads guilty to the offense, in addition to any fine, term of imprisonment, seizure, and forfeiture imposed, to make restitution for the minimum value of the wild animal illegally held, taken, bought, sold, or possessed as established under section 1531.201 of the Revised Code. An officer who collects moneys paid as restitution under this section shall pay those moneys to the treasurer of state who shall deposit them in the state treasury to the credit of the wildlife fund established under section 1531.17 of the Revised Code.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1997–2017 · leading case: Risner v. Ohio Dept. of Nat. Resources, 2015-Ohio-3731, 144 Ohio St. 3d 278.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Risner v. Ohio Dept. of Nat. Resources, 2015-Ohio-3731, 144 Ohio St. 3d 278. · cites it 2× “R.C. 1531.99(E) is nearly identical. And here, the sentencing court had already ordered restitution and the forfeiture of the animal in the criminal proceeding.”
State v. Musick, 695 N.E.2d 317 (Ohio Ct. App. 11th Dist. 1997). “It is a fourth-degree misdemeanor, per R.C. 1531.99, punishable by a maximum of thirty days in jail, a fine of $250, loss of hunting privileges up to three years, or any combination of the three.”
State v. Chambers, 903 N.E.2d 709 (Ohio Ct. App. 7th Dist. 2008). “) {¶ 18} R.C. 1531.99 establishes the penalty for violating R.”
State v. Storms, 2017-Ohio-8658, 101 N.E.3d 14. “) {¶ 8} Appellant argues that R.C. 1531.99 should control. Under R.C. 1533.”
State v. Gasparac, 2017-Ohio-8711. “R.C. 1531.99(D): Whoever violates section 1531.”
State v. Pierce, 2014-Ohio-4833. “13CA11 6 permanently tag deer, in violation of former OAC 1501:31-15-11(F)(14), both third degree misdemeanors per R.C. 1531.99(B), which governs penalties and restitution for illegally taken or possessed wild animals.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 1531.99(B): 1 case
State v. Pierce, 2014-Ohio-4833. “13CA11 6 permanently tag deer, in violation of former OAC 1501:31-15-11(F)(14), both third degree misdemeanors per R.C. 1531.99(B), which governs penalties and restitution for illegally taken or possessed wild animals.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 1531.99(D): 1 case
State v. Gasparac, 2017-Ohio-8711. “R.C. 1531.99(D): Whoever violates section 1531.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 1531.99(E): 1 case
Risner v. Ohio Dept. of Nat. Resources, 2015-Ohio-3731, 144 Ohio St. 3d 278. “R.C. 1531.99(E) is nearly identical. And here, the sentencing court had already ordered restitution and the forfeiture of the animal in the criminal proceeding.”
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.