Upon the request of the victim or offender in a prosecution under any provision of sections 2907.02 to 2907.07 of the Revised Code, the judge before whom any person is brought on a charge of having committed an offense under a provision of one of those sections shall order that the names of the victim and offender and the details of the alleged offense as obtained by any law enforcement officer be suppressed until the preliminary hearing, the accused is arraigned in the court of common pleas, the charge is dismissed, or the case is otherwise concluded, whichever occurs first. Nothing in this section shall be construed to deny to either party in the case the name and address of the other party or the details of the alleged offense.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 1956–2018 · leading case: Midling v. Perrini, 236 N.E.2d 557 (Ohio 1968).
Midling v. Perrini, 236 N.E.2d 557 (Ohio 1968). · cites it 2ד20, Revised Code, penalty 1 to 7 years); that, at the trial, he retracted his pleas of not guilty and pleaded guilty to two charges of forcing entrance into depository boxes and the charge of possession of burglary tools; and that the court, on recommendation of the prosecuting…”
State v. McDonald, 509 N.E.2d 57 (Ohio 1987). “) Former R.C. 2907.11, the predecessor to R.C. 2923.”
State v. Gravin, 338 N.E.2d 539 (Ohio Ct. App. 7th Dist. 1974). · cites it 4ד“Contrary to Section 2907.11, Revised Code of Ohio, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Ohio.”
State v. Gerhardt, 184 N.E.2d 516 (Ohio Ct. App. 1961). · cites it 6דAppellant was indicted by the Grand Jury of Gallia County, Ohio, on Jome 14, 1960, together with Edward Earl Isaac and George Paul Isaac, under an indictment charging them with possession of burglary tools, contrary to Section 2907.11, Revised Code. On arraignment appellant…”
State v. Bowman, 245 N.E.2d 380 (Ohio Ct. App. 1969). · cites it 4דTMs cause originated in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County wherein the defendants, appellants herein, Jerry Bowman, Chester Hoover and Harley David Hinkley, were tried and convicted of violating Section 2907.11, Revised Code, which provides that: “No person shall…”
State v. Shawhan, 2018-Ohio-2428. “05, one count of gross sexual imposition (substantially impaired) in violation of R.C. 2907.11, and four counts of tampering with evidence (alter/destroy) in violation of R.”
State v. Rucks, 141 N.E.2d 265 (Ohio Ct. App. 1956). “This is a law appeal from a judgment of the Common Pleas Court rendered upon the verdict of a jury- finding the defendant guilty of illegally possessing burglary tools in violation of §2907.11 R. C. The errors assigned are as follows: (1) The Court erred in the admission of…”
United States v. Megale, 235 F.R.D. 151 (D. Conn. 2006). “12 (1992) (victim privacy rights extend only to children); Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 2907.11 (Baldwin 1989) (names of victims suppressed until the preliminary hearing .”
State v. Wozniak, 172 Ohio St. (N.S.) 517 (Ohio 1961). · cites it 2דIt is apparent from a comparison of the words of count two before its amendment with the words of Section 2907.11, Revised Code, that that count contained every essential element of the crime specified in that statute.”
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.