(A) No person, with purpose to defraud, or knowing that the person is facilitating a fraud, shall do any of the following:
(1) Forge any writing of another without the other person's authority;
(2) Forge any writing so that it purports to be genuine when it actually is spurious, or to be the act of another who did not authorize that act, or to have been executed at a time or place or with terms different from what in fact was the case, or to be a copy of an original when no such original existed;
(3) Utter, or possess with purpose to utter, any writing that the person knows to have been forged.
(B) No person shall knowingly do either of the following:
(1) Forge an identification card;
(2) Sell or otherwise distribute a card that purports to be an identification card, knowing it to have been forged.
As used in this division, "identification card" means a card that includes personal information or characteristics of an individual, a purpose of which is to establish the identity of the bearer described on the card, whether the words "identity," "identification," "identification card," or other similar words appear on the card.
(C)(1)(a) Whoever violates division (A) of this section is guilty of forgery.
(b) Except as otherwise provided in this division or division (C)(1)(c) of this section and subject to division (C) (1)(d) of this section, forgery is a felony of the fifth degree. If property or services are involved in the offense or the victim suffers a loss, forgery is one of the following:
(i) If the value of the property or services or the loss to the victim is seven thousand five hundred dollars or more and is less than one hundred fifty thousand dollars, a felony of the fourth degree;
(ii) If the value of the property or services or the loss to the victim is one hundred fifty thousand dollars or more, a felony of the third degree.
(c) If the victim of the offense is an elderly person or disabled adult, division (C)(1)(c) of this section applies to the forgery. Except as otherwise provided in division (C)(1)(c) of this section, forgery is a felony of the fifth degree. If property or services are involved in the offense or if the victim suffers a loss, forgery is one of the following:
(i) If the value of the property or services or the loss to the victim is one thousand dollars or more and is less than seven thousand five hundred dollars, a felony of the fourth degree;
(ii) If the value of the property or services or the loss to the victim is seven thousand five hundred dollars or more and is less than thirty-seven thousand five hundred dollars, a felony of the third degree;
(iii) If the value of the property or services or the loss to the victim is thirty-seven thousand five hundred dollars or more, a felony of the second degree.
(d) If the victim of the offense is an elderly person, division (C)(1)(d) of this section applies to the forgery. In addition to any other penalty imposed for the offense under division (C)(1)(c) of this section, the offender shall be required to pay full restitution to the victim and to pay a fine of up to fifty thousand dollars. The clerk of court shall forward all fines collected under division (C)(1)(d) of this section to the county department of job and family services to be used for the reporting and investigation of elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation or for the provision or arrangement of protective services under sections 5101.61 to 5101.71 of the Revised Code.
(2) (a) Whoever violates division (B) of this section is guilty of forging identification cards or selling or distributing forged identification cards. Except as otherwise provided in this division, forging identification cards or selling or distributing forged identification cards is a misdemeanor of the first degree. If the offender previously has been convicted of a violation of division (B) of this section, forging identification cards or selling or distributing forged identification cards is a misdemeanor of the first degree and, in addition, the court shall impose upon the offender a fine of not less than two hundred fifty dollars.
(b) If the victim of a violation of division (B) of this section is an elderly person, division (C)(2)(b) of this section applies to the offense. In addition to any other penalty imposed for the offense under division (C)(2)(a) of this section, whoever violates division (B) of this section shall be required to pay full restitution to the victim and to pay a fine of up to fifty thousand dollars. The clerk of court shall forward all fines collected under division (C)(2)(b) of this section to the county department of job and family services to be used for the reporting and investigation of elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation or for the provision or arrangement of protective services under sections 5101.61 to 5101.71 of the Revised Code.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 318
cases (76 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: State v. Sufronko, 664 N.E.2d 596 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995).
State v. Sufronko, 664 N.E.2d 596 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 12דUnder the forgery statute, R.C. 2913.31 prohibits the act of forging any writing.”
State v. Hulbert, 2021 Ohio 2298 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 8ד02(A)(1), (B)(3) for theft from multiple residents of Van Wert Manor with a specification that the value stolen was between $37,500 and $150,000, a felony of the second degree; 2) Forgery against Beth Cobb (“Cobb”) in violation of R.C. 2913.31(A)(1), (C)(1)(c)(i) with a…”
State v. Tiger, 772 N.E.2d 144 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 16ד” Appellant has argued that because subsection (B) of R.C. 2913.31 specifically prohibits the forging of “identification cards,” subsection (A), which proscribes the forging of “writings,” cannot be read to include cards of identification, such as a driver’s license.”
State v. Spencer, 2017 Ohio 59 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 6ד“Forge” is defined as “to fabricate or create, in whole or in part and by any means, any spurious writing, or to make, execute, alter, complete, reproduce, or otherwise purport to authenticate any writing, when the writing in fact is not authenticated by that conduct.”
State v. Suffel, 2015 Ohio 222 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 8ד{¶2} On September 10, 2013, the Paulding County Grand Jury indicted Suffel on Counts One, Two, and Three of forgery in violation of R.C. 2913.31(A)(3), fifth-degree felonies.”
State v. Beehive Ltd. P'ship, 627 N.E.2d 592 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 17דDefendant-appellant Beehive Limited Partnership (“Beehive”) appeals from its convictions for forgery in violation of R.C. 2913.31, uttering in violation of R.”
State v. Pettus, 2019 Ohio 2023 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 6דThe clause requiring that the victim of the offenses be an elderly person or disabled adult is limited to violations of R.C. 2913.31 and 2913.43. {¶37} The legislative history of R.”
State v. Calhoun, 2019 Ohio 228 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 4דOn January 27, 2017, appellant Delorean Calhoun pled guilty to the offense of forgery, a violation of R.C. 2913.31(A)(3) pursuant to R.C. 2913.”
State v. Foster, 845 N.E.2d 470 (Ohio 2006). “R.C. 2913.31(A)(3). . R.C. 2923.32(A)(1).”
State v. Tate, 2013 Ohio 5167 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 6ד{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant, Darrell Tate, appeals from his conviction and sentence, following a jury trial in which the jury found him guilty of Forgery under R.C. 2913.31(A)(3). Tate was sentenced to 12 months in prison and was ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $17,681.”
State v. Lindsey, 2012 Ohio 804 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 8ד12(A)(2) (Count 1), forgery in violation of R.C. 2913.31(A)(2) (Counts 2 and 4), forgery in violation of R.”
State v. Barga, 2018 Ohio 2804 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 3ד32; three counts of forgery in violation of R.C. 2913.31(A)(3); and one count of possessing criminal tools in violation of R.”
State v. Tiger, 772 N.E.2d 144 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002). “” Appellant has argued that because subsection (B) of R.C. 2913.31 specifically prohibits the forging of “identification cards,” subsection (A), which proscribes the forging of “writings,” cannot be read to include cards of identification, such as a driver’s license.”
State v. Beehive Ltd. P'ship, 627 N.E.2d 592 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993). “Defendant-appellant Beehive Limited Partnership (“Beehive”) appeals from its convictions for forgery in violation of R.C. 2913.31, uttering in violation of R.”
State v. Hulbert, 2021 Ohio 2298 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “02(A)(1), (B)(3) for theft from multiple residents of Van Wert Manor with a specification that the value stolen was between $37,500 and $150,000, a felony of the second degree; 2) Forgery against Beth Cobb (“Cobb”) in violation of R.C. 2913.31(A)(1), (C)(1)(c)(i) with a…”
State v. Sufronko, 664 N.E.2d 596 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995). “Under the forgery statute, R.C. 2913.31 prohibits the act of forging any writing.”
State v. Lindsey, 2012 Ohio 804 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “12(A)(2) (Count 1), forgery in violation of R.C. 2913.31(A)(2) (Counts 2 and 4), forgery in violation of R.”
State v. Tiger, 772 N.E.2d 144 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002). “” Appellant has argued that because subsection (B) of R.C. 2913.31 specifically prohibits the forging of “identification cards,” subsection (A), which proscribes the forging of “writings,” cannot be read to include cards of identification, such as a driver’s license.”
State v. Suffel, 2015 Ohio 222 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015). “{¶2} On September 10, 2013, the Paulding County Grand Jury indicted Suffel on Counts One, Two, and Three of forgery in violation of R.C. 2913.31(A)(3), fifth-degree felonies.”
State v. Foster, 845 N.E.2d 470 (Ohio 2006). “R.C. 2913.31(A)(3). . R.C. 2923.32(A)(1).”
State v. Tate, 2013 Ohio 5167 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant, Darrell Tate, appeals from his conviction and sentence, following a jury trial in which the jury found him guilty of Forgery under R.C. 2913.31(A)(3). Tate was sentenced to 12 months in prison and was ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $17,681.”
State v. Spencer, 2017 Ohio 59 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). ““Forge” is defined as “to fabricate or create, in whole or in part and by any means, any spurious writing, or to make, execute, alter, complete, reproduce, or otherwise purport to authenticate any writing, when the writing in fact is not authenticated by that conduct.”
State v. Pettus, 2019 Ohio 2023 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “The clause requiring that the victim of the offenses be an elderly person or disabled adult is limited to violations of R.C. 2913.31 and 2913.43. {¶37} The legislative history of R.”
State v. Tiger, 772 N.E.2d 144 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002). “” Appellant has argued that because subsection (B) of R.C. 2913.31 specifically prohibits the forging of “identification cards,” subsection (A), which proscribes the forging of “writings,” cannot be read to include cards of identification, such as a driver’s license.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2913.31(B)(1) — 3 cases
State v. Tiger, 772 N.E.2d 144 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002). “” Appellant has argued that because subsection (B) of R.C. 2913.31 specifically prohibits the forging of “identification cards,” subsection (A), which proscribes the forging of “writings,” cannot be read to include cards of identification, such as a driver’s license.”
State v. Calhoun, 2019 Ohio 228 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “On January 27, 2017, appellant Delorean Calhoun pled guilty to the offense of forgery, a violation of R.C. 2913.31(A)(3) pursuant to R.C. 2913.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2913.31(C)(1)(b) — 3 cases
State v. Calhoun, 2019 Ohio 228 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “On January 27, 2017, appellant Delorean Calhoun pled guilty to the offense of forgery, a violation of R.C. 2913.31(A)(3) pursuant to R.C. 2913.”
State v. Tiger, 772 N.E.2d 144 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002). “” Appellant has argued that because subsection (B) of R.C. 2913.31 specifically prohibits the forging of “identification cards,” subsection (A), which proscribes the forging of “writings,” cannot be read to include cards of identification, such as a driver’s license.”
State v. Tiger, 772 N.E.2d 144 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002). “” Appellant has argued that because subsection (B) of R.C. 2913.31 specifically prohibits the forging of “identification cards,” subsection (A), which proscribes the forging of “writings,” cannot be read to include cards of identification, such as a driver’s license.”
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.