Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 1707.29 (2026)

Presumption of knowledge

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Effective:

March 31, 2021

Latest Legislation:

House Bill 312 - 133rd General Assembly

PDF:

Download Authenticated PDF

In any prosecution brought under sections 1707.01 to 1707.50 of the Revised Code, except prosecutions brought for violation of division (A) of section 1707.042 of the Revised Code, the accused shall be deemed to have had knowledge of any matter of fact, where in the exercise of reasonable diligence, the accused should, prior to the alleged commission of the offense in question, have secured such knowledge.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1967–2025 · leading case: State v. Warner, 564 N.E.2d 18 (Ohio 1990).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Warner, 564 N.E.2d 18 (Ohio 1990). · cites it 13× “V Culpable Mental State under R.C. 1707.29 as Applied to R.C. 1707.44 In Warner’s thirteenth proposition of law, defendant argues that R.”

State v. Schiebel, 564 N.E.2d 54 (Ohio 1990). · cites it 2× “V Presumptions Under R.C. 1707.29 In proposition of law ten, Schiebel alleges that the trial court improperly instructed the jury that under R.”

State v. Trivedi, 457 N.E.2d 868 (Ohio Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 12× “Defendant’s first assignment states: “The Court erred by ruling that O.R.C. 1707.29 was constitutional, and the error was compounded when the Court relied upon the presumption of knowledge as contained in 1707.”

Marvin L. Warner v. Rex A. Zent, Warden, 997 F.2d 116 (6th Cir. 1993). · cites it 4× “Warner by the Ohio courts; and (4) the statutory “presumption” complained of, as set forth in Ohio Rev.Code § 1707.29, is not a presumption at all; as the Ohio Supreme Court noted, the statute “merely sets forth what the term knowledge encompasses for purposes of criminal…”

W. & S. Life Ins. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 54 F. Supp. 3d 888 (S.D. Ohio 2014). · cites it 4× “Finally, Plaintiffs state that counsel in other lawsuits have alleged that occupancy rates were similarly misstated in the WMALT 2005-9, WMALT 2006-5, WMALT 2006-9, WMALT 2007-OA3, and JPMMT 2005-S3 Offerings. Based on these samples, Plaintiffs allege upon information and belief…”

Chiles v. M.C. Capital Corp., 642 N.E.2d 1115 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “Defendants also assert that the state failed to introduce any evidence showing that defendants sold securities “knowing” that they were unregistered in violation of R.”

Diversified Prop. Corp. v. Winters Natl. Bank & Trust Co., 234 N.E.2d 608 (Ohio Ct. App. 1967). · cites it 2× “Section 1707.29, Revised Code. In our opinion, the alleged contract in the present case committed the appellant to a violation of Section 1707.”

Henneforth v. Seidt, 2025 Ohio 1109 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 10× “R.C. 1707.29 provides: In any prosecution brought under sections 1707.”

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.