(A) No person shall knowingly solicit another to engage in sexual activity for hire in exchange for the person receiving anything of value from the other person.
(B) No person, with knowledge that the person has tested positive as a carrier of a virus that causes acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, shall engage in conduct in violation of division (A) of this section.
(C)(1) Whoever violates division (A) of this section is guilty of soliciting. Soliciting is a misdemeanor of the third degree.
(2) Whoever violates division (B) of this section is guilty of engaging in solicitation after a positive HIV test. If the offender commits the violation prior to July 1, 1996, engaging in solicitation after a positive HIV test is a felony of the second degree. If the offender commits the violation on or after July 1, 1996, engaging in solicitation after a positive HIV test is a felony of the third degree.
(D) As used in this section, "sexual activity for hire" means an implicit or explicit agreement to provide sexual activity in exchange for anything of value paid to the person engaging in such sexual activity, to any person trafficking that person, or to any person associated with either such person.
Last updated October 19, 2021 at 10:05 AM
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 49
cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: State v. Short, 2017-Ohio-7200, 144 N.E.3d 1037.
State v. Short, 2017-Ohio-7200, 144 N.E.3d 1037. · cites it 9דWe stated: “The conduct that R.C. 2907.24 prohibits is the offer. Whether it is done in the form of an initial offer, a counter offer, or in response to an open inquiry, is immaterial.”
State v. Jali, 2020-Ohio-208. · cites it 6ד24 the State has the burden to demonstrate that a person accused of soliciting prostitution not only offered to engage in sexual activity for hire, but initiated an offer that was complete in those terms.” West at ¶ 21. We commented that: The conduct that R.”
State v. Thompson, 95 Ohio St. 3d 264 (2002). · cites it 3דThe concurrence misleads with its reference to R.C. 2907.24 to bolster its construction of R.”
State v. Thompson, 2002-Ohio-2124, 95 Ohio St. 3d 264. · cites it 3דThe concurrence misleads with its reference to R.C. 2907.24 to bolster its construction of R.”
Seo v. Austintown Twp., 722 N.E.2d 1090 (Ohio Ct. App. 7th Dist. 1998). · cites it 9דOn April 29, 1996, Boualaphana Sithavong, an employee of appellant, was arrested by the Austintown Township Police Department on a charge of soliciting in violation of R.C. 2907.24, a third-degree misdemeanor.”
State v. Bennett, 2015-Ohio-3246. · cites it 4דBennett was arrested and charged with soliciting and loitering to engage in solicitation (“loitering”), in violation of R.C. 2907.24(A) and 2907.241(A), respectively.”
State v. Wendling, 2022-Ohio-496. · cites it 4דIn doing so, we stated, “[t]he conduct that R.C. 2907.24 prohibits is the offer. Whether it is done in the form of an initial offer, a counter offer, or in response to an open inquiry, is immaterial.”
State v. Pan, 2023-Ohio-3172, 224 N.E.3d 157. · cites it 4דThe court explained that “[t]he conduct that R.C. 2907.24 prohibits is the offer. Whether it is done in the form of an initial offer, a counter offer, or in response to an 7.”
In re T.J., 2014-Ohio-4919. · cites it 2ד22; and (2) solicitation, a third-degree misdemeanor in violation of R.C. 2907.24. T.J. was also charged with a probation violation, as the conduct in which she was alleged to have engaged was committed while she was on probation.”
State v. Swann, 753 N.E.2d 984 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 2001). “” The charge against Swann was soliciting, in violation of R.C. 2907.24, which states that “[n]o person shall solicit another to engage with such other person in sexual activity for hire.”
State v. Anderson, 2024-Ohio-843. · cites it 2דSee former R.C. 2907.24(A)(1) and (2), amended April 21, 2021.”
Ohio State Bar Ass'n v. Jacob, 2017-Ohio-2733, 80 N.E.3d 440. “In September 2014, after a five-day bench trial, the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas found him guilty of five misdemeanors: three counts of solicitation under R.C. 2907.24(A)(1), one count of falsification under R.”
State v. Short, 2017-Ohio-7200, 144 N.E.3d 1037. “We stated: “The conduct that R.C. 2907.24 prohibits is the offer. Whether it is done in the form of an initial offer, a counter offer, or in response to an open inquiry, is immaterial.”
State v. Pan, 2023-Ohio-3172, 224 N.E.3d 157. “The court explained that “[t]he conduct that R.C. 2907.24 prohibits is the offer. Whether it is done in the form of an initial offer, a counter offer, or in response to an 7.”
State v. Bennett, 2015-Ohio-3246. “Bennett was arrested and charged with soliciting and loitering to engage in solicitation (“loitering”), in violation of R.C. 2907.24(A) and 2907.241(A), respectively.”
State v. Short, 2017-Ohio-7200, 144 N.E.3d 1037. “We stated: “The conduct that R.C. 2907.24 prohibits is the offer. Whether it is done in the form of an initial offer, a counter offer, or in response to an open inquiry, is immaterial.”
State v. Jali, 2020-Ohio-208. “24 the State has the burden to demonstrate that a person accused of soliciting prostitution not only offered to engage in sexual activity for hire, but initiated an offer that was complete in those terms.” West at ¶ 21. We commented that: The conduct that R.”
State v. Bennett, 2015-Ohio-3246. “Bennett was arrested and charged with soliciting and loitering to engage in solicitation (“loitering”), in violation of R.C. 2907.24(A) and 2907.241(A), respectively.”
State v. Wendling, 2022-Ohio-496. “In doing so, we stated, “[t]he conduct that R.C. 2907.24 prohibits is the offer. Whether it is done in the form of an initial offer, a counter offer, or in response to an open inquiry, is immaterial.”
Ohio State Bar Ass'n v. Jacob, 2017-Ohio-2733, 80 N.E.3d 440. “In September 2014, after a five-day bench trial, the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas found him guilty of five misdemeanors: three counts of solicitation under R.C. 2907.24(A)(1), one count of falsification under R.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.24(A)(2): 3 cases
State v. Short, 2017-Ohio-7200, 144 N.E.3d 1037. “We stated: “The conduct that R.C. 2907.24 prohibits is the offer. Whether it is done in the form of an initial offer, a counter offer, or in response to an open inquiry, is immaterial.”
State v. Anderson, 2024-Ohio-843. “See former R.C. 2907.24(A)(1) and (2), amended April 21, 2021.”
State v. Pan, 2023-Ohio-3172, 224 N.E.3d 157. “The court explained that “[t]he conduct that R.C. 2907.24 prohibits is the offer. Whether it is done in the form of an initial offer, a counter offer, or in response to an 7.”
State v. Short, 2017-Ohio-7200, 144 N.E.3d 1037. “We stated: “The conduct that R.C. 2907.24 prohibits is the offer. Whether it is done in the form of an initial offer, a counter offer, or in response to an open inquiry, is immaterial.”
State v. Jali, 2020-Ohio-208. “24 the State has the burden to demonstrate that a person accused of soliciting prostitution not only offered to engage in sexual activity for hire, but initiated an offer that was complete in those terms.” West at ¶ 21. We commented that: The conduct that R.”
State v. Wendling, 2022-Ohio-496. “In doing so, we stated, “[t]he conduct that R.C. 2907.24 prohibits is the offer. Whether it is done in the form of an initial offer, a counter offer, or in response to an open inquiry, is immaterial.”
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.