(A) No person, knowing the person has no privilege to do so, and with purpose to defraud or knowing that the person is facilitating a fraud, shall do any of the following:
(1) Falsify, destroy, remove, conceal, alter, deface, or mutilate any writing, computer software, data, or record;
(2) Utter any writing or record, knowing it to have been tampered with as provided in division (A)(1) of this section.
(B)(1) Whoever violates this section is guilty of tampering with records.
(2) Except as provided in division (B)(4) of this section, if the offense does not involve data or computer software, tampering with records is whichever of the following is applicable:
(a) If division (B)(2)(b) of this section does not apply, a misdemeanor of the first degree;
(b) If the writing or record is a will unrevoked at the time of the offense, a felony of the fifth degree.
(3) Except as provided in division (B)(4) of this section, if the offense involves a violation of division (A) of this section involving data or computer software, tampering with records is whichever of the following is applicable:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in division (B)(3)(b), (c), or (d) of this section, a misdemeanor of the first degree;
(b) If the value of the data or computer software involved in the offense 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 fifth degree;
(c) If the value of the data or computer software involved in the offense 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;
(d) If the value of the data or computer software involved in the offense or the loss to the victim is one hundred fifty thousand dollars or more or if the offense is committed for the purpose of devising or executing a scheme to defraud or to obtain property or services and the value of the property or services or the loss to the victim is seven thousand five hundred dollars or more, a felony of the third degree.
(4) If the writing, data, computer software, or record is kept by or belongs to a local, state, or federal governmental entity, a felony of the third degree.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 216
cases (64 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case: State v. Pelfrey, 860 N.E.2d 735 (Ohio 2007).
State v. Pelfrey, 860 N.E.2d 735 (Ohio 2007). · cites it 8ד*424 {¶ 3} An Enviro-Test Systems employee, appellee, David Pelfrey, was arrested and charged by indictment with tampering with records, in violation of R.C. 2913.42, which requires an enhanced charge of third-degree felony when the defendant’s tampering involves government…”
State v. Brunning, 2012 Ohio 5752 (Ohio 2012). · cites it 11ד{¶ 2} Further, we address the issue whether an offender who files an address-verification form with a sheriff under the mistaken belief that the form is required may be convicted of tampering with records pursuant to R.C. 2913.42 if the form contains false information that was…”
State v. Cook, 2010 Ohio 6305 (Ohio 2010). · cites it 10דR.C. 2913.42 provides that, with an exception not relevant here, tampering with private records constitutes a misdemeanor while tampering with public records, i.”
State v. McDonald, 2013 Ohio 5042 (Ohio 2013). · cites it 8דPelfrey was allegedly involved in a scheme in which, for cash, he would provide fraudulent waivers for vehicles that had actually failed an emissions test.”
State v. Heiney, 2018 Ohio 3408 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 6ד42(B)(4) ; see also 1974 Committee Comment to R.C. 2913.42 (noting that the statute "prohibits tampering with all private as well as public records, for fraudulent purposes, and thus expands upon former law which prohibited such conduct only with respect with public documents.”
State v. Haller, 2012 Ohio 5233 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 4דIn Pelfrey, the defendant was charged with tampering with records in violation of R.C. 2913.42, with an enhanced charge to a third degree felony for tampering with government records pursuant to R.”
State v. Burns, 2011 Ohio 4230 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 11ד02 (Theft and Fraud) and R.C. 2913.42 (Tampering with Records). R.”
State v. Sultaana, 2016 Ohio 199 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 10דTampering With Records {¶32} In the second assignment of error, Sultaana argues there was insufficient evidence to sustain his tampering with records convictions because those charges were erroneously charged under R.C. 2913.42 instead of R.C. 4505.19, which prohibits the use of…”
Bradley v. Miller, 96 F. Supp. 3d 753 (S.D. Ohio 2015). · cites it 9ד” Ohio Rev.Code § 2913.42(A). Subsections (A)(1) clearly intends to prohibit acts such as the falsification, destruction, or concealing of any “writing” or “record” as a whole, and does not refer to the particular statements contained in the writing.”
State v. Infante, 2020 Ohio 992 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 13ד3 THE CONVICTIONS OF TAMPERING WITH RECORDS, R.C. §2913.42. VIOLATE OHIO’S PROHIBITION OF THE USE OF GENERAL CRIMINAL LAW PROVISIONS OVER SPECIFIC STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF A LESSER DEGREE.”
State v. Mason, 2018 Ohio 3329 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 8דHowever, appellant urges that Brunning , which involved a convicted sex offender filing an address-verification form with a county sheriff, does not address the issues raised herein.”
State v. Mays, 2024 Ohio 4616 (Ohio 2024). · cites it 9דIn this case, therefore, Pelfrey can be convicted only of a misdemeanor offense, which is the least degree under R.C. 2913.42(B) of the offense of tampering with records.”
Bradley v. Miller, 96 F. Supp. 3d 753 (S.D. Ohio 2015). “” Ohio Rev.Code § 2913.42(A). Subsections (A)(1) clearly intends to prohibit acts such as the falsification, destruction, or concealing of any “writing” or “record” as a whole, and does not refer to the particular statements contained in the writing.”
State v. Brunning, 2012 Ohio 5752 (Ohio 2012). “{¶ 2} Further, we address the issue whether an offender who files an address-verification form with a sheriff under the mistaken belief that the form is required may be convicted of tampering with records pursuant to R.C. 2913.42 if the form contains false information that was…”
State v. Burns, 2011 Ohio 4230 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). “02 (Theft and Fraud) and R.C. 2913.42 (Tampering with Records). R.”
State v. Heiney, 2018 Ohio 3408 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). “42(B)(4) ; see also 1974 Committee Comment to R.C. 2913.42 (noting that the statute "prohibits tampering with all private as well as public records, for fraudulent purposes, and thus expands upon former law which prohibited such conduct only with respect with public documents.”
State v. Cook, 2010 Ohio 6305 (Ohio 2010). “R.C. 2913.42 provides that, with an exception not relevant here, tampering with private records constitutes a misdemeanor while tampering with public records, i.”
State v. Mason, 2018 Ohio 3329 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). “However, appellant urges that Brunning , which involved a convicted sex offender filing an address-verification form with a county sheriff, does not address the issues raised herein.”
State v. Sultaana, 2016 Ohio 199 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “Tampering With Records {¶32} In the second assignment of error, Sultaana argues there was insufficient evidence to sustain his tampering with records convictions because those charges were erroneously charged under R.C. 2913.42 instead of R.C. 4505.19, which prohibits the use of…”
State v. Burns, 2011 Ohio 4230 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). “02 (Theft and Fraud) and R.C. 2913.42 (Tampering with Records). R.”
State v. Burns, 2011 Ohio 4230 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). “02 (Theft and Fraud) and R.C. 2913.42 (Tampering with Records). R.”
Bradley v. Miller, 96 F. Supp. 3d 753 (S.D. Ohio 2015). “” Ohio Rev.Code § 2913.42(A). Subsections (A)(1) clearly intends to prohibit acts such as the falsification, destruction, or concealing of any “writing” or “record” as a whole, and does not refer to the particular statements contained in the writing.”
State v. Pelfrey, 860 N.E.2d 735 (Ohio 2007). “*424 {¶ 3} An Enviro-Test Systems employee, appellee, David Pelfrey, was arrested and charged by indictment with tampering with records, in violation of R.C. 2913.42, which requires an enhanced charge of third-degree felony when the defendant’s tampering involves government…”
State v. Mays, 2024 Ohio 4616 (Ohio 2024). “In this case, therefore, Pelfrey can be convicted only of a misdemeanor offense, which is the least degree under R.C. 2913.42(B) of the offense of tampering with records.”
State v. Infante, 2020 Ohio 992 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “3 THE CONVICTIONS OF TAMPERING WITH RECORDS, R.C. §2913.42. VIOLATE OHIO’S PROHIBITION OF THE USE OF GENERAL CRIMINAL LAW PROVISIONS OVER SPECIFIC STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF A LESSER DEGREE.”
State v. Pelfrey, 860 N.E.2d 735 (Ohio 2007). “*424 {¶ 3} An Enviro-Test Systems employee, appellee, David Pelfrey, was arrested and charged by indictment with tampering with records, in violation of R.C. 2913.42, which requires an enhanced charge of third-degree felony when the defendant’s tampering involves government…”
State v. McDonald, 2013 Ohio 5042 (Ohio 2013). “Pelfrey was allegedly involved in a scheme in which, for cash, he would provide fraudulent waivers for vehicles that had actually failed an emissions test.”
State v. Haller, 2012 Ohio 5233 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “In Pelfrey, the defendant was charged with tampering with records in violation of R.C. 2913.42, with an enhanced charge to a third degree felony for tampering with government records pursuant to R.”
State v. Pelfrey, 860 N.E.2d 735 (Ohio 2007). “*424 {¶ 3} An Enviro-Test Systems employee, appellee, David Pelfrey, was arrested and charged by indictment with tampering with records, in violation of R.C. 2913.42, which requires an enhanced charge of third-degree felony when the defendant’s tampering involves government…”
State v. Mays, 2024 Ohio 4616 (Ohio 2024). “In this case, therefore, Pelfrey can be convicted only of a misdemeanor offense, which is the least degree under R.C. 2913.42(B) of the offense of tampering with records.”
State v. McDonald, 2013 Ohio 5042 (Ohio 2013). “Pelfrey was allegedly involved in a scheme in which, for cash, he would provide fraudulent waivers for vehicles that had actually failed an emissions test.”
State v. Cook, 2010 Ohio 6305 (Ohio 2010). “R.C. 2913.42 provides that, with an exception not relevant here, tampering with private records constitutes a misdemeanor while tampering with public records, i.”
State v. Haller, 2012 Ohio 5233 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “In Pelfrey, the defendant was charged with tampering with records in violation of R.C. 2913.42, with an enhanced charge to a third degree felony for tampering with government records pursuant to R.”
State v. Pelfrey, 860 N.E.2d 735 (Ohio 2007). “*424 {¶ 3} An Enviro-Test Systems employee, appellee, David Pelfrey, was arrested and charged by indictment with tampering with records, in violation of R.C. 2913.42, which requires an enhanced charge of third-degree felony when the defendant’s tampering involves government…”
State v. Heiney, 2018 Ohio 3408 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). “42(B)(4) ; see also 1974 Committee Comment to R.C. 2913.42 (noting that the statute "prohibits tampering with all private as well as public records, for fraudulent purposes, and thus expands upon former law which prohibited such conduct only with respect with public documents.”
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.