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

Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.21 (2026)

Criminal liability, culpability

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
March 23, 2015
Latest Legislation:
Senate Bill 361 - 130th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) Except as provided in division (B) of this section, a person is not guilty of an offense unless both of the following apply:

(1) The person's liability is based on conduct that includes either a voluntary act, or an omission to perform an act or duty that the person is capable of performing;

(2) The person has the requisite degree of culpability for each element as to which a culpable mental state is specified by the language defining the offense.

(B) When the language defining an offense does not specify any degree of culpability, and plainly indicates a purpose to impose strict criminal liability for the conduct described in the section, then culpability is not required for a person to be guilty of the offense. The fact that one division of a section plainly indicates a purpose to impose strict liability for an offense defined in that division does not by itself plainly indicate a purpose to impose strict criminal liability for an offense defined in other divisions of the section that do not specify a degree of culpability.

(C)(1) When language defining an element of an offense that is related to knowledge or intent or to which mens rea could fairly be applied neither specifies culpability nor plainly indicates a purpose to impose strict liability, the element of the offense is established only if a person acts recklessly.

(2) Division (C)(1) of this section does not apply to offenses defined in Title XLV of the Revised Code.

(3) Division (C)(1) of this section does not relieve the prosecution of the burden of proving the culpable mental state required by any definition incorporated into the offense.

(E) Voluntary intoxication may not be taken into consideration in determining the existence of a mental state that is an element of a criminal offense. Voluntary intoxication does not relieve a person of a duty to act if failure to act constitutes a criminal offense. Evidence that a person was voluntarily intoxicated may be admissible to show whether or not the person was physically capable of performing the act with which the person is charged.

(F) As used in this section:

(1) Possession is a voluntary act if the possessor knowingly procured or received the thing possessed, or was aware of the possessor's control of the thing possessed for a sufficient time to have ended possession.

(2) Reflexes, convulsions, body movements during unconsciousness or sleep, and body movements that are not otherwise a product of the actor's volition, are involuntary acts.

(3) "Culpability" means purpose, knowledge, recklessness, or negligence, as defined in section 2901.22 of the Revised Code.

(4) "Intoxication" includes, but is not limited to, intoxication resulting from the ingestion of alcohol, a drug, or alcohol and a drug.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 339 cases (76 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: State v. Ireland (Slip Opinion), 2018 Ohio 4494 (Ohio 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Ireland (Slip Opinion), 2018 Ohio 4494 (Ohio 2018). · cites it 76× “Ireland objected and argued that it would be improper to instruct the jury that the defendant had the burden of proving the blackout defense, because the standard jury instruction on the blackout defense does not include affirmative-defense language and the blackout defense…”
State v. Johnson, 2010 Ohio 6301 (Ohio 2010). · cites it 80× “__________________ SYLLABUS OF THE COURT 1. A conviction for violation of the offense of having weapons while under disability as defined by R.”
State v. Horner, 2010 Ohio 3830 (Ohio 2010). · cites it 48× “Absence of a Culpable Mental State and the Role of R.C. 2901.21(B) {¶ 19} As can be seen above, the aggravated-robbery statute does not expressly state a mental state for aggravated robbery when it involves inflicting or attempting to inflict serious physical harm on another…”
State v. Tolliver (Slip Opinion), 2014 Ohio 3744 (Ohio 2014). · cites it 67× “21(B): (1) does the section defining an offense specify any degree of culpability, and (2) does the section plainly indicate a purpose to impose strict criminal liability? Id.”
State v. Lester, 2009 Ohio 4225 (Ohio 2009). · cites it 23× “However, the rule was modified in 1974, when the General Assembly repealed former R.C. 2901.21 and enacted a new statute expressing how mens rea, i.”
State v. Lozier, 803 N.E.2d 770 (Ohio 2004). · cites it 15× “R.C. 2901.21(A)(2) requires that, in order to be found guilty of a criminal offense, a person must have “the requisite degree of culpability for each element as to which a culpable mental state is specified by the section defining the offense.”
State v. Thompson, 2017 Ohio 792 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 8× “First, R.C. 2901.21 contains an exception to the two prerequisites for criminal liability that Thompson points to in his argument.”
State v. Maxwell, 2002 Ohio 2121 (Ohio 2002). · cites it 10× “21 provides: {¶16} “(B) When the section defining an offense does not specify any degree of culpability, and plainly indicates a purpose to impose strict criminal liability for the conduct described in the section, then culpability is not required for a person to be guilty of…”
State v. Maxwell, 95 Ohio St. 3d 254 (Ohio 2002). · cites it 10× “21 provides: {¶ 16} “(B) When the section defining an offense does not specify any degree of culpability, and plainly indicates a purpose to impose strict criminal liability for the conduct described in the section, then culpability is not required for a person to be guilty of…”
State v. Brock, 2019 Ohio 3116 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 24× “{¶ 24} The current version of R.C. 2901.21 states, in pertinent part, that: (A) Except as provided in division (B) of this section, a person is not -9- guilty of an offense unless both of the following apply: (1) The person's liability is based on conduct that includes either a…”
Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107 (1982). · cites it 4× “See Committee Comment to Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2901.21 (1975) ("generally, an offense is not committed unless a person .”
State v. Foust, 2004 Ohio 7006 (Ohio 2004). · cites it 5× “Foust asserts that his counsel should have challenged the constitutionality of R.C. 2901.21(C) 2 and claims that his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to retain an alcohol and substance-abuse expert to challenge the statute.”
Show all 339 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.21(A) — 49 cases
State v. Ireland (Slip Opinion), 2018 Ohio 4494 (Ohio 2018). “Ireland objected and argued that it would be improper to instruct the jury that the defendant had the burden of proving the blackout defense, because the standard jury instruction on the blackout defense does not include affirmative-defense language and the blackout defense…”
State v. Thompson, 2017 Ohio 792 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “First, R.C. 2901.21 contains an exception to the two prerequisites for criminal liability that Thompson points to in his argument.”
State v. Johnson, 2010 Ohio 6301 (Ohio 2010). “__________________ SYLLABUS OF THE COURT 1. A conviction for violation of the offense of having weapons while under disability as defined by R.”
State v. Barnd, 619 N.E.2d 518 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993).
State v. Mundy, 650 N.E.2d 502 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.21(A)(1) — 26 cases
State v. Ireland (Slip Opinion), 2018 Ohio 4494 (Ohio 2018). “Ireland objected and argued that it would be improper to instruct the jury that the defendant had the burden of proving the blackout defense, because the standard jury instruction on the blackout defense does not include affirmative-defense language and the blackout defense…”
State v. Blackburn, 2022 Ohio 988 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
State v. Remillard, 2019 Ohio 3545 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).
City of Youngstown v. Traylor, 2009 Ohio 4184 (Ohio 2009).
State v. Elliott, 663 N.E.2d 412 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.21(A)(2) — 13 cases
State v. Johnson, 2010 Ohio 6301 (Ohio 2010). “__________________ SYLLABUS OF THE COURT 1. A conviction for violation of the offense of having weapons while under disability as defined by R.”
State v. Ireland (Slip Opinion), 2018 Ohio 4494 (Ohio 2018). “Ireland objected and argued that it would be improper to instruct the jury that the defendant had the burden of proving the blackout defense, because the standard jury instruction on the blackout defense does not include affirmative-defense language and the blackout defense…”
State v. Colon, 885 N.E.2d 917 (Ohio 2008).
State v. Lester, 2009 Ohio 4225 (Ohio 2009). “However, the rule was modified in 1974, when the General Assembly repealed former R.C. 2901.21 and enacted a new statute expressing how mens rea, i.”
State v. Jordan, 733 N.E.2d 601 (Ohio 2000).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.21(B) — 141 cases
State v. Horner, 2010 Ohio 3830 (Ohio 2010). “Absence of a Culpable Mental State and the Role of R.C. 2901.21(B) {¶ 19} As can be seen above, the aggravated-robbery statute does not expressly state a mental state for aggravated robbery when it involves inflicting or attempting to inflict serious physical harm on another…”
State v. Johnson, 2010 Ohio 6301 (Ohio 2010). “__________________ SYLLABUS OF THE COURT 1. A conviction for violation of the offense of having weapons while under disability as defined by R.”
State v. Tolliver (Slip Opinion), 2014 Ohio 3744 (Ohio 2014). “21(B): (1) does the section defining an offense specify any degree of culpability, and (2) does the section plainly indicate a purpose to impose strict criminal liability? Id.”
State v. Lozier, 803 N.E.2d 770 (Ohio 2004). “R.C. 2901.21(A)(2) requires that, in order to be found guilty of a criminal offense, a person must have “the requisite degree of culpability for each element as to which a culpable mental state is specified by the section defining the offense.”
State v. Lester, 2009 Ohio 4225 (Ohio 2009). “However, the rule was modified in 1974, when the General Assembly repealed former R.C. 2901.21 and enacted a new statute expressing how mens rea, i.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.21(C) — 29 cases
State v. Foust, 2004 Ohio 7006 (Ohio 2004). “Foust asserts that his counsel should have challenged the constitutionality of R.C. 2901.21(C) 2 and claims that his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to retain an alcohol and substance-abuse expert to challenge the statute.”
State v. Johnston, 2015 Ohio 450 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015).
State v. Kelly, 2021 Ohio 2007 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Cox, 2022 Ohio 571 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
State v. Shalash, 2015 Ohio 3836 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.21(C)(1) — 26 cases
State v. Kelly, 2021 Ohio 2007 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Cunningham, 2024 Ohio 2032 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
State v. Ewing, 2021 Ohio 2220 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Towns, 2020 Ohio 5120 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Brock, 2019 Ohio 3116 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “{¶ 24} The current version of R.C. 2901.21 states, in pertinent part, that: (A) Except as provided in division (B) of this section, a person is not -9- guilty of an offense unless both of the following apply: (1) The person's liability is based on conduct that includes either a…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.21(C)(2) — 3 cases
State v. Carswell, 2021 Ohio 3379 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Ireland, 2017 Ohio 263 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
City of Mentor v. Hamercheck, 678 N.E.2d 622 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.21(C)(3) — 1 case
State v. Brock, 2019 Ohio 3116 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “{¶ 24} The current version of R.C. 2901.21 states, in pertinent part, that: (A) Except as provided in division (B) of this section, a person is not -9- guilty of an offense unless both of the following apply: (1) The person's liability is based on conduct that includes either a…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.21(D) — 5 cases
State v. Ireland, 2017 Ohio 263 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
State v. Woods, 2016 Ohio 661 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
State v. Freeman, 2011 Ohio 2663 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011).
State v. Caldwell, 2011 Ohio 5429 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011).
State v. Cotton, 2019 Ohio 4710 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.21(D)(1) — 35 cases
State v. Carlton, 2013 Ohio 2788 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
State v. Markins, 2013 Ohio 602 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
State v. Thomas, 2012 Ohio 5577 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012).
State v. Hurley, 2014 Ohio 2716 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
State v. Russell, 2022 Ohio 1746 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.21(D)(2) — 6 cases
State v. Sowry, 803 N.E.2d 867 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004).
State v. Hinton, 2014 Ohio 490 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
State v. Galbraith, 2012 Ohio 5231 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012).
State v. Swiger, 2013 Ohio 3519 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
State v. Flitcraft, 2024 Ohio 3146 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.21(D)(3) — 1 case
Barnett v. Rich (In Re Rich), 401 B.R. 281 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2009).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.21(D)(4) — 1 case
State v. Gerth, 2013 Ohio 1751 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.21(E) — 22 cases
State v. Blackburn, 2022 Ohio 988 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
State v. Thompson, 2016 Ohio 4689 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
State v. Luebrecht, 2019 Ohio 1573 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).
State v. K.W., 2016 Ohio 7365 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
State v. Buttram, 2020 Ohio 2709 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.21(E)(2) — 1 case
State v. Ireland, 2017 Ohio 263 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.21(F)(1) — 9 cases
State v. Russell, 2022 Ohio 1746 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
State v. Marr, 2020 Ohio 3898 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Sanders, 2021 Ohio 2431 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Webb, 2018 Ohio 4199 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
State v. Cook, 2020 Ohio 2844 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.21(F)(2) — 8 cases
State v. Ireland (Slip Opinion), 2018 Ohio 4494 (Ohio 2018). “Ireland objected and argued that it would be improper to instruct the jury that the defendant had the burden of proving the blackout defense, because the standard jury instruction on the blackout defense does not include affirmative-defense language and the blackout defense…”
State v. Blackburn, 2022 Ohio 988 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
State v. Hodge, 2022 Ohio 1780 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
In re A.F., 2020 Ohio 5420 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Ritchey, 2023 Ohio 1625 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.21(F)(3) — 1 case
State v. Lake, 2023 Ohio 1619 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.21(F)(4) — 5 cases
State v. Luebrecht, 2019 Ohio 1573 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).
State v. Bell, 2016 Ohio 1440 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
State v. Stanford, 2023 Ohio 1515 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
State v. Cookingham, 2017 Ohio 8362 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
State v. Tussing, 2024 Ohio 5757 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
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.