Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2901 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.11 (2026)

Jurisdiction for criminal acts

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
July 13, 2005
Latest Legislation:
Senate Bill 20 - 126th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) A person is subject to criminal prosecution and punishment in this state if any of the following occur:

(1) The person commits an offense under the laws of this state, any element of which takes place in this state.

(2) While in this state, the person attempts to commit, or is guilty of complicity in the commission of, an offense in another jurisdiction, which offense is an offense under both the laws of this state and the other jurisdiction, or, while in this state, the person conspires to commit an offense in another jurisdiction, which offense is an offense under both the laws of this state and the other jurisdiction, and a substantial overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy is undertaken in this state by the person or another person involved in the conspiracy, subsequent to the person's entrance into the conspiracy. In any case in which a person attempts to commit, is guilty of complicity in the commission of, or conspires to commit an offense in another jurisdiction as described in this division, the person is subject to criminal prosecution and punishment in this state for the attempt, complicity, or conspiracy, and for any resulting offense that is committed or completed in the other jurisdiction.

(3) While out of this state, the person conspires or attempts to commit, or is guilty of complicity in the commission of, an offense in this state.

(4) While out of this state, the person omits to perform a legal duty imposed by the laws of this state, which omission affects a legitimate interest of the state in protecting, governing, or regulating any person, property, thing, transaction, or activity in this state.

(5) While out of this state, the person unlawfully takes or retains property and subsequently brings any of the unlawfully taken or retained property into this state.

(6) While out of this state, the person unlawfully takes or entices another and subsequently brings the other person into this state.

(7) The person, by means of a computer, computer system, computer network, telecommunication, telecommunications device, telecommunications service, or information service, causes or knowingly permits any writing, data, image, or other telecommunication to be disseminated or transmitted into this state in violation of the law of this state.

(B) In homicide, the element referred to in division (A)(1) of this section includes the act that causes death, the physical contact that causes death, the death itself, or any other element that is set forth in the offense in question. If any part of the body of a homicide victim is found in this state, the death is presumed to have occurred within this state.

(C)(1) This state includes the land and water within its boundaries and the air space above that land and water, with respect to which this state has either exclusive or concurrent legislative jurisdiction. Where the boundary between this state and another state or foreign country is disputed, the disputed territory is conclusively presumed to be within this state for purposes of this section.

(2) The courts of common pleas of Adams, Athens, Belmont, Brown, Clermont, Columbiana, Gallia, Hamilton, Jefferson, Lawrence, Meigs, Monroe, Scioto, and Washington counties have jurisdiction beyond the north or northwest shore of the Ohio river extending to the opposite shore line, between the extended boundary lines of any adjacent counties or adjacent state. Each of those courts of common pleas has concurrent jurisdiction on the Ohio river with any adjacent court of common pleas that borders on that river and with any court of Kentucky or of West Virginia that borders on the Ohio river and that has jurisdiction on the Ohio river under the law of Kentucky or the law of West Virginia, whichever is applicable, or under federal law.

(D) When an offense is committed under the laws of this state, and it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the offense or any element of the offense took place either in this state or in another jurisdiction or jurisdictions, but it cannot reasonably be determined in which it took place, the offense or element is conclusively presumed to have taken place in this state for purposes of this section.

(E) When a person is subject to criminal prosecution and punishment in this state for an offense committed or completed outside of this state, the person is subject to all specifications for that offense that would be applicable if the offense had been committed within this state.

(F) Any act, conduct, or element that is a basis of a person being subject under this section to criminal prosecution and punishment in this state need not be committed personally by the person as long as it is committed by another person who is in complicity or conspiracy with the person.

(G) This section shall be liberally construed, consistent with constitutional limitations, to allow this state the broadest possible jurisdiction over offenses and persons committing offenses in, or affecting, this state.

(H) For purposes of division (A)(2) of this section, an overt act is substantial when it is of a character that manifests a purpose on the part of the actor that the object of the conspiracy should be completed.

(I) As used in this section, "computer," "computer system," "computer network," "information service," "telecommunication," "telecommunications device," "telecommunications service," "data," and "writing" have the same meanings as in section 2913.01 of the Revised Code.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 98 cases (22 in the last 5 years), 1955–2026 · leading case: State v. Yarbrough, 104 Ohio St. 3d 1 (Ohio 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Yarbrough, 104 Ohio St. 3d 1 (Ohio 2004). · cites it 22× “See R.C. 2901.11. {¶ 4} Nothing in the record reflects that the defense counsel or the trial court ever recognized this error — despite the fact that the prosecutor was seeking the *2 death penalty.”
State v. Wogenstahl (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 6873 (Ohio 2017). · cites it 53× “11, Ohio’s criminal-law jurisdiction statute, provided: (A) A person is subject to criminal prosecution and punishment in this state if any of the following occur: (1) The person commits an offense under the laws of this state, any element of which takes place in this state.”
State v. Wogenstahl, 2024 Ohio 4714 (Ohio 2024). · cites it 86× “11(B) narrowed the scope of former R.C. 2901.11(A)(1) in homicide cases, so that course-of-conduct elements under former R.”
Leyman v. Bradshaw (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 1093 (Ohio 2016). · cites it 12× “2d 845 , the trial court lacked jurisdiction to convict him of the rape of his former stepson, the only offense for which he remains incarcerated.”
State v. Froman (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 4523 (Ohio 2020). · cites it 6× “Relevant statutes {¶ 33} R.C. 2901.11, Ohio’s criminal-law-jurisdiction statute, states the following: (A) A person is subject to criminal prosecution and punishment in this state if any of the following occur: (1) The person commits an offense under the laws of this state, any…”
State v. Jackson (Slip Opinion), 2014 Ohio 3707 (Ohio 2014). · cites it 6× “{¶ 127} Ahmed relied on R.C. 2901.11, which grants jurisdiction to Ohio courts over criminal offenses that occur in Ohio.”
State v. Armengau, 2017 Ohio 4452 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “R.C. 2901.11 and 2901.12 permit a grand jury to indict an offender for offenses that No.”
State v. Moore, 2022 Ohio 1460 (Ohio 2022). · cites it 4× “However, the defendant 5 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO in Chintalapalli lived outside Ohio, so the case involved the application of R.C. 2901.11(A)(4), which grants the state jurisdiction over people outside the state who fail to perform a legal duty imposed by the state.”
State v. Chintalapalli, 723 N.E.2d 111 (Ohio 2000). · cites it 5× “R.C. 2901.11(A)(1). Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by asserting jurisdiction over Mr.”
State v. Williams, 557 N.E.2d 818 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 4× “In support thereof, they refer to R.C. 2901.11, which is the statute concerning criminal law jurisdiction.”
State v. Blankenship, 2017 Ohio 7267 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 6× “*** (D) When the offense is conspiracy, attempt, or complicity cognizable under division (A) (2) of section 2901.11 of the Revised Code, the offender may be tried in any jurisdiction in which the conspiracy, attempt, complicity, or any of its elements occurred.”
State v. Wyley, 2016 Ohio 1118 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “See Ohio Constitution Article IV, Section 4(A); R.C. 2901.11; State v. Dulaney, 2013-Ohio-3985 , 997 N.”
Show all 98 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.11(A) — 11 cases
State v. Dudley, 581 S.E.2d 171 (S.C. Ct. App. 2003).
State v. Matthews, 2016 Ohio 5055 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
State v. Rutledge, 2019 Ohio 3460 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).
Shaker Hts. v. El-Bey, 2017 Ohio 929 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
State v. Cunningham, 808 N.E.2d 488 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.11(A)(1) — 41 cases
State v. Jackson (Slip Opinion), 2014 Ohio 3707 (Ohio 2014). “{¶ 127} Ahmed relied on R.C. 2901.11, which grants jurisdiction to Ohio courts over criminal offenses that occur in Ohio.”
State v. Wogenstahl, 2024 Ohio 4714 (Ohio 2024). “11(B) narrowed the scope of former R.C. 2901.11(A)(1) in homicide cases, so that course-of-conduct elements under former R.”
State v. Froman (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 4523 (Ohio 2020). “Relevant statutes {¶ 33} R.C. 2901.11, Ohio’s criminal-law-jurisdiction statute, states the following: (A) A person is subject to criminal prosecution and punishment in this state if any of the following occur: (1) The person commits an offense under the laws of this state, any…”
Leyman v. Bradshaw (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 1093 (Ohio 2016). “2d 845 , the trial court lacked jurisdiction to convict him of the rape of his former stepson, the only offense for which he remains incarcerated.”
State v. Yarbrough, 104 Ohio St. 3d 1 (Ohio 2004). “See R.C. 2901.11. {¶ 4} Nothing in the record reflects that the defense counsel or the trial court ever recognized this error — despite the fact that the prosecutor was seeking the *2 death penalty.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.11(A)(2) — 4 cases
State v. Yarbrough, 104 Ohio St. 3d 1 (Ohio 2004). “See R.C. 2901.11. {¶ 4} Nothing in the record reflects that the defense counsel or the trial court ever recognized this error — despite the fact that the prosecutor was seeking the *2 death penalty.”
State v. Bush, 2023 Ohio 4473 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
Stevens-Rucker v. City of Columbus, 242 F. Supp. 3d 608 (S.D. Ohio 2017).
In re C.P., 2021 Ohio 4522 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.11(A)(3) — 1 case
State v. Rudolph, 2019 Ohio 468 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.11(A)(4) — 3 cases
State v. Moore, 2022 Ohio 1460 (Ohio 2022). “However, the defendant 5 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO in Chintalapalli lived outside Ohio, so the case involved the application of R.C. 2901.11(A)(4), which grants the state jurisdiction over people outside the state who fail to perform a legal duty imposed by the state.”
State v. Chintalapalli, 723 N.E.2d 111 (Ohio 2000). “R.C. 2901.11(A)(1). Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by asserting jurisdiction over Mr.”
State v. Chintalapalli, 2000 Ohio 266 (Ohio 2000).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.11(A)(5)(a) — 1 case
Terrance Walter v. Bennie Kelly, 653 F. App'x 378 (6th Cir. 2016).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.11(B) — 6 cases
State v. Yarbrough, 104 Ohio St. 3d 1 (Ohio 2004). “See R.C. 2901.11. {¶ 4} Nothing in the record reflects that the defense counsel or the trial court ever recognized this error — despite the fact that the prosecutor was seeking the *2 death penalty.”
Leyman v. Bradshaw (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 1093 (Ohio 2016). “2d 845 , the trial court lacked jurisdiction to convict him of the rape of his former stepson, the only offense for which he remains incarcerated.”
State v. Froman (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 4523 (Ohio 2020). “Relevant statutes {¶ 33} R.C. 2901.11, Ohio’s criminal-law-jurisdiction statute, states the following: (A) A person is subject to criminal prosecution and punishment in this state if any of the following occur: (1) The person commits an offense under the laws of this state, any…”
State v. Wogenstahl (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 6873 (Ohio 2017). “11, Ohio’s criminal-law jurisdiction statute, provided: (A) A person is subject to criminal prosecution and punishment in this state if any of the following occur: (1) The person commits an offense under the laws of this state, any element of which takes place in this state.”
State v. Wogenstahl, 2024 Ohio 4714 (Ohio 2024). “11(B) narrowed the scope of former R.C. 2901.11(A)(1) in homicide cases, so that course-of-conduct elements under former R.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.11(C) — 3 cases
State v. Jones, 2013 Ohio 4775 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
State v. Jamii, 2023 Ohio 4671 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
State v. Gerling, 602 N.E.2d 734 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.11(C)(9) — 1 case
State v. Jamii, 2023 Ohio 4671 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.11(D) — 9 cases
State v. Wogenstahl, 2024 Ohio 4714 (Ohio 2024). “11(B) narrowed the scope of former R.C. 2901.11(A)(1) in homicide cases, so that course-of-conduct elements under former R.”
State v. Wogenstahl (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 6873 (Ohio 2017). “11, Ohio’s criminal-law jurisdiction statute, provided: (A) A person is subject to criminal prosecution and punishment in this state if any of the following occur: (1) The person commits an offense under the laws of this state, any element of which takes place in this state.”
Leyman v. Bradshaw (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 1093 (Ohio 2016). “2d 845 , the trial court lacked jurisdiction to convict him of the rape of his former stepson, the only offense for which he remains incarcerated.”
State v. Yarbrough, 104 Ohio St. 3d 1 (Ohio 2004). “See R.C. 2901.11. {¶ 4} Nothing in the record reflects that the defense counsel or the trial court ever recognized this error — despite the fact that the prosecutor was seeking the *2 death penalty.”
State v. Williams, 557 N.E.2d 818 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988). “In support thereof, they refer to R.C. 2901.11, which is the statute concerning criminal law jurisdiction.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.11(G) — 1 case
Leyman v. Bradshaw (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 1093 (Ohio 2016). “2d 845 , the trial court lacked jurisdiction to convict him of the rape of his former stepson, the only offense for which he remains incarcerated.”
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.