Ohio Revised Code
Ohio Rev. Code § 2911.32 (2026)
Tampering with coin machines
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(A) No person, with purpose to commit theft or to defraud, shall knowingly enter, force an entrance into, tamper with, or insert any part of an instrument into any coin machine.
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of tampering with coin machines, a misdemeanor of the first degree. If the offender previously has been convicted of a violation of this section or of any theft offense as defined in section 2913.01 of the Revised Code, tampering with coin machines is a felony of the fifth degree.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 1981–2018 · leading case: State v. Baer, 423 N.E.2d 432 (Ohio 1981).
State v. Baer, 423 N.E.2d 432 (Ohio 1981). “25(A), the multiple count provision, has been violated when a defendant is convicted of two allied offenses of similar import: tampering with coin machines, Revised Code Section 2911.32, and theft, Revised Code Section 2913.”
State v. Meyer, 706 N.E.2d 378 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997). “Meyer, was convicted following a plea of guilty to a violation of R.C. 2911.32(A), tampering with coin machines, a first-degree misdemeanor.”
State v. Dunihue, 485 N.E.2d 764 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984). “3d 138 ], the Supreme Court held that where a defendant is charged with tampering with a coin machine, R.C. 2911.32, and theft, in connection with money stolen from the coin machine which was tampered with, the two crimes are allied offenses of similar import under R.”
State v. Taylor, 2013 Ohio 472 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “” {¶ 3} On February 24, 2012, the Hocking County Grand Jury returned an indictment that charged appellant with the above noted offenses, as well as a separate count that charged him with receiving stolen property in violation of R.C. 2911.32(A). Appellant initially pled not…”
State v. Fields, 2012 Ohio 4808 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “24(A), a felony of the fifth degree, and one count of tampering with coin machines in violation of R.C. 2911.32, a felony of the fifth degree.”
State v. Bonnell, 2012 Ohio 5150 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “{¶19} “As to count two, the tampering with coin machines, a felony of the fifth degree, in violation of section 2911.32(A), it will be the sentence of this court that you will serve eleven months in prison; to pay the costs of prosecution for which execution is awarded.”
State v. Carroll, 469 N.E.2d 1348 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984). “3d 138 ], wherein the defendant was charged in separate counts of forcing entrance into a coin machine, for the purpose of committing theft, in violation of R.C. 2911.32, and also theft of money contained therein, contrary to R.”
State v. Landgraf, 2018 Ohio 195 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). “{¶ 3} In his brief, counsel for Landgraf asserts that, after a review of the record, he could ascertain no arguably meritorious issues to present on appeal.”
State v. Taylor, 2013 Ohio 471 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “” {¶ 3} On January 6, 2012, the Hocking County Grand Jury returned an indictment that charged appellant with the above noted offenses, as well as a third count that charged him with tampering with a coin machine in violation of R.C. 2911.32(A). Appellant initially pled not…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2911.32(A) — 5 cases
State v. Meyer, 706 N.E.2d 378 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997). “Meyer, was convicted following a plea of guilty to a violation of R.C. 2911.32(A), tampering with coin machines, a first-degree misdemeanor.”
State v. Taylor, 2013 Ohio 472 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “” {¶ 3} On February 24, 2012, the Hocking County Grand Jury returned an indictment that charged appellant with the above noted offenses, as well as a separate count that charged him with receiving stolen property in violation of R.C. 2911.32(A). Appellant initially pled not…”
State v. Bonnell, 2012 Ohio 5150 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “{¶19} “As to count two, the tampering with coin machines, a felony of the fifth degree, in violation of section 2911.32(A), it will be the sentence of this court that you will serve eleven months in prison; to pay the costs of prosecution for which execution is awarded.”
State v. Landgraf, 2018 Ohio 195 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). “{¶ 3} In his brief, counsel for Landgraf asserts that, after a review of the record, he could ascertain no arguably meritorious issues to present on appeal.”
State v. Taylor, 2013 Ohio 471 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “” {¶ 3} On January 6, 2012, the Hocking County Grand Jury returned an indictment that charged appellant with the above noted offenses, as well as a third count that charged him with tampering with a coin machine in violation of R.C. 2911.32(A). Appellant initially pled not…”
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.