(A) An officer, agent, or employee of an organization as defined in section 2901.23 of the Revised Code may be prosecuted for an offense committed by such organization, if he acts with the kind of culpability required for the commission of the offense, and any of the following apply:
(1) In the name of the organization or in its behalf, he engages in conduct constituting the offense, or causes another to engage in such conduct, or tolerates such conduct when it is of a type for which he has direct responsibility;
(2) He has primary responsibility to discharge a duty imposed on the organization by law, and such duty is not discharged.
(B) When a person is convicted of an offense by reason of this section, he is subject to the same penalty as if he had acted in his own behalf.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1960–2024 · leading case: Beach v. McAninch, 676 N.E.2d 1226 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996).
Beach v. McAninch, 676 N.E.2d 1226 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 3ד31, and felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2901.24. The current rape statute, R.”
Willowick Bldg. Dept. v. Shoregate Towers NS, L.L.C., 2024-Ohio-700, 237 N.E.3d 269. · cites it 2דThis is to prevent individuals from using the “corporate structure as a shield from liability for criminal acts.”
State v. Stirnkorb, 580 N.E.2d 69 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 4דIn addition, each of these counts was raised under the purview of R.C. 2901.24, which reads as follows: "(A) An officer, agent, or employee of an organization as defined in section 2901.”
State v. Dudley, 249 N.E.2d 536 (Ohio Ct. App. 1969). · cites it 2ד*15 Section 2901.24, Revised Code, defines the offense, as follows: “No person shall assault another with intent to kill • • • 99 While the section does not contain words suggesting specific intent as an element of the crime, Ohio courts have held that a showing of malice is…”
State v. Lewis, 186 N.E.2d 487 (Ohio Ct. App. 1962). · cites it 2דSee Section 2901.24, Eevised Code. The question of what is a dangerous weapon within the meaning of this statute was left unanswered by the legislature.”
State v. Perry, 588 N.E.2d 897 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 4דAdditionally, R.C. 2901.24 provides for the personal accountability of an officer, agent, or employee of a corporation.”
State v. Pandey, 2018-Ohio-3020. “(ORC 2901.24) {¶19} We find Appellant’s argument to be without merit.”
State v. Bamonte, 2022-Ohio-1331. · cites it 3ד4, 1999) (stating that legislative history shows that "the purpose behind [R.C. 2901.24] was to eliminate the possibility of individuals or corporations using a corporate structure as a shield from liability in criminal cases").”
State v. Dobbins, 171 Ohio St. (N.S.) 40 (Ohio 1960). · cites it 4דThus, this court had specifically stated in the syllabus of 1 the Smith case and again in the syllabus of the O’Meara case that “an attempt” by a male 17 or over “to carnally know and abuse a female * * * under ten * * * with her consent” was “not indictable” under what is now…”
Boynton v. Sacks, 173 Ohio St. (N.S.) 526 (Ohio 1962). · cites it 4ד, late of said Delaware County, on or about the 15th day of August in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fifty-nine at the county of Delaware aforesaid, unlawfully assaulted * * * with intent to rape said * * *, contrary to Section 2901.24 of the Revised Code of…”
State v. Mishne, 197 N.E.2d 224 (Ohio Ct. App. 1963). · cites it 2דCount Nine: did unlawfully assault Robert Gregory with intent to kill him, contrary to Section 2901.24, Revised Code. Count Ten: did unlawfully assault Robert Gregory with dangerous weapons or instruments or by other means or force likely to produce death or great bodily harm to…”
Boyer v. Maxwell, 175 Ohio St. (N.S.) 318 (Ohio 1963). · cites it 2ד09, Revised Code), and the other charged assault with intent to commit rape and/or kill (Section 2901.24, Revised Code). These are two separate and distinct offenses with entirely different elements.”
State v. Bamonte, 2022-Ohio-1331. “4, 1999) (stating that legislative history shows that "the purpose behind [R.C. 2901.24] was to eliminate the possibility of individuals or corporations using a corporate structure as a shield from liability in criminal cases").”
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.