(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, 121 N.E.3d 285.
State v. Ireland (Slip Opinion), 2018-Ohio-4494, 121 N.E.3d 285. · cites it 76דIreland 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, 128 Ohio St. 3d 107. · cites it 80ד__________________ 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, 935 N.E.2d 26. · cites it 48דAbsence 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, 19 N.E.3d 870. · cites it 67ד21(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, 916 N.E.2d 1038. · cites it 23דHowever, 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 15דR.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. · cites it 8דFirst, 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, 767 N.E.2d 242. · cites it 10ד21 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 (2002). · cites it 10ד21 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, 140 N.E.3d 1239. · cites it 24ד{¶ 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 4דSee 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, 823 N.E.2d 836. · cites it 5דFoust 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. Ireland (Slip Opinion), 2018-Ohio-4494, 121 N.E.3d 285. “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. “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, 128 Ohio St. 3d 107. “__________________ 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. 3d Dist. 1993).
State v. Mundy, 650 N.E.2d 502 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1994).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.21(A)(1): 26 cases
State v. Ireland (Slip Opinion), 2018-Ohio-4494, 121 N.E.3d 285. “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. Elliott, 663 N.E.2d 412 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1995).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.21(A)(2): 13 cases
State v. Johnson, 2010-Ohio-6301, 128 Ohio St. 3d 107. “__________________ 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, 121 N.E.3d 285. “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. Lester, 2009-Ohio-4225, 916 N.E.2d 1038. “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. Horner, 2010-Ohio-3830, 935 N.E.2d 26. “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, 128 Ohio St. 3d 107. “__________________ 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, 19 N.E.3d 870. “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, 916 N.E.2d 1038. “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, 823 N.E.2d 836. “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. Brock, 2019-Ohio-3116, 140 N.E.3d 1239. “{¶ 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…”
State v. Brock, 2019-Ohio-3116, 140 N.E.3d 1239. “{¶ 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…”
State v. Ireland (Slip Opinion), 2018-Ohio-4494, 121 N.E.3d 285. “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…”
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.