Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2907
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.30 (2026)

Interview of victim by crisis intervention trained officer

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
September 3, 1996
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 445 - 121st General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) A victim of a sexual offense cognizable as a violation of section 2907.02 of the Revised Code who is interviewed by a law enforcement agency shall be interviewed by a peace officer employed by the agency who has had crisis intervention training, if any of the peace officers employed by the agency who have had crisis intervention training is reasonably available.

(B) When a person is charged with a violation of section 2907.02, 2907.03, 2907.04, 2907.05, or 2907.06 of the Revised Code and the law enforcement agency that arrested the person or a court discovers that the person arrested or a person whom the person arrested caused to engage in sexual activity has a communicable disease, the law enforcement agency that arrested the person or the court immediately shall notify the victim of the nature of the disease.

(C) As used in this section, "crisis intervention training" has the same meaning as in section 109.71 of the Revised Code.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1965–2001 · leading case: State v. Corkran, 209 N.E.2d 437 (Ohio 1965).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Corkran, 209 N.E.2d 437 (Ohio 1965). · cites it 2× “The indictment herein was framed in the language of Section 2907.30, Revised Code, charging a misdemeanor, and defendant was sentenced as for the commission of a misdemeanor.”
Gramaglia v. Gray, 395 F. Supp. 606 (S.D. Ohio 1975). · cites it 2× “ed on the first floor level, he believes and has good cause to believe that at said place there are concealed numerous diamond rings, several of which have identifying numbers in the ‘shank’, said numbers being 1085 and 1087, and other lady’s diamond rings and earrings with…”
State v. Wilson, 763 N.E.2d 196 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 2001). · cites it 2× “04 and the second charging him with having unlawfully received or having unlawfully concealed the same vehicle in violation of R.C. 2907.30. A jury found Botta guilty on both counts, but the court struck the conviction on the second count, concluding that the verdict was…”
Coleman v. Maxwell, 273 F. Supp. 275 (S.D. Ohio 1967). · cites it 2× “However, because the prior written statement on scienter is obviously a conclusion based on underlying facts (which could have included someone telling petitioner the set was stolen) the statement itself is not material to petitioner’s guilt.”
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.