(A) No person shall experiment upon or sell the product of human conception which is aborted. Experiment does not include autopsies pursuant to sections 313.13 and 2108.50 of the Revised Code.
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of abortion trafficking, a misdemeanor of the first degree.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29
cases (14 in the last 5 years), 2000–2026 · leading case: State v. Bonnell (Slip Opinion), 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659.
State v. Bonnell (Slip Opinion), 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659. · cites it 2ד2”), the General Assembly limited judicial discretion in imposing consecutive sentences and established a presumption in favor of concurrent sentences in former R.C. 2929.41(A), 146 Ohio Laws, Part IV, at 7502, which the trial court could overcome only by making the statutorily…”
State v. Hughes, 2021-Ohio-3127. · cites it 2דCONSECUTIVE PRISON TERMS {¶26} For her second assignment of error, Hughes concedes that the trial court stated the necessary statutory language on the record and in the sentencing entry – the trial court made the findings required by R.C. 2919.14(C)(4) – thus consecutive…”
State v. Peabody, 2024-Ohio-185. · cites it 2דIn his fifth assignment of error, Peabody argues that the trial court imposed consecutive sentences without making sufficient findings required under R.C. 2919.14(C)(4). In particular, he maintains that at the sentencing hearing, the trial court failed to find that consecutive…”
State v. Fields, 2017-Ohio-661. “), the court provided the following perspective regarding the findings required by former R.C. 2919.14(E)(4): In some sense, the findings required by R.”
State v. Lane, 2022-Ohio-3775, 202 N.E.3d 45. “11(A), (C)(6)(b); R.C. 2919.14(A)(4). As a first degree felony, possession of heroin in violation of R.”
State v. Gray, 2019-Ohio-5317. “25 or consecutive sentences under R.C. 2919.14. Her decision not to object on those grounds was reasonable and Appellant has not shown that Scioto App.”
Barney v. Conway, 730 F. Supp. 2d 264 (W.D.N.Y. 2010). · cites it 2דSee Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 2919.14(B) (2003) (where a defendant has not served a prior prison term, the “court shall impose the shortest prison term authorized for the offense .”
State v. Steiner, 2016-Ohio-4648. “At least one of the findings in R.C. 2919.14(C)(4) must also be made and supported by the record.”
State v. Graham, 2014-Ohio-3149. “See R.C. 2919.14(A)(1) (“For a felony of the first degree, the prison term shall be three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, or eleven years”).”
State v. Willan, 2011-Ohio-6603. “R.C. 2919.14(A)(1). The State persuaded the trial court, however, that it was further required by R.”
State v. Ashcraft, 2021-Ohio-3842, 180 N.E.3d 630. “Sentencing Guidelines General Sentencing Statute {¶15} R.C. 2919.14(A)(3) is a general sentencing statute that controls third- degree felonies.”
Forbes v. Napolitano, 236 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2000). “2-01-02 (1985); Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 2919.14 (Baldwin 1986); Okla.”
State v. Graham, 2014-Ohio-3149. “See R.C. 2919.14(A)(1) (“For a felony of the first degree, the prison term shall be three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, or eleven years”).”
State v. Willan, 2011-Ohio-6603. “R.C. 2919.14(A)(1). The State persuaded the trial court, however, that it was further required by R.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.14(A)(3): 2 cases
State v. Ashcraft, 2021-Ohio-3842, 180 N.E.3d 630. “Sentencing Guidelines General Sentencing Statute {¶15} R.C. 2919.14(A)(3) is a general sentencing statute that controls third- degree felonies.”
State v. Lane, 2022-Ohio-3775, 202 N.E.3d 45. “11(A), (C)(6)(b); R.C. 2919.14(A)(4). As a first degree felony, possession of heroin in violation of R.”
Barney v. Conway, 730 F. Supp. 2d 264 (W.D.N.Y. 2010). “See Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 2919.14(B) (2003) (where a defendant has not served a prior prison term, the “court shall impose the shortest prison term authorized for the offense .”
Barney v. Conway, 730 F. Supp. 2d 264 (W.D.N.Y. 2010). “See Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 2919.14(B) (2003) (where a defendant has not served a prior prison term, the “court shall impose the shortest prison term authorized for the offense .”
State v. Hughes, 2021-Ohio-3127. “CONSECUTIVE PRISON TERMS {¶26} For her second assignment of error, Hughes concedes that the trial court stated the necessary statutory language on the record and in the sentencing entry – the trial court made the findings required by R.C. 2919.14(C)(4) – thus consecutive…”
State v. Peabody, 2024-Ohio-185. “In his fifth assignment of error, Peabody argues that the trial court imposed consecutive sentences without making sufficient findings required under R.C. 2919.14(C)(4). In particular, he maintains that at the sentencing hearing, the trial court failed to find that consecutive…”
State v. Steiner, 2016-Ohio-4648. “At least one of the findings in R.C. 2919.14(C)(4) must also be made and supported by the record.”
State v. Bonnell (Slip Opinion), 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659. “2”), the General Assembly limited judicial discretion in imposing consecutive sentences and established a presumption in favor of concurrent sentences in former R.C. 2929.41(A), 146 Ohio Laws, Part IV, at 7502, which the trial court could overcome only by making the statutorily…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.14(E)(4): 1 case
State v. Fields, 2017-Ohio-661. “), the court provided the following perspective regarding the findings required by former R.C. 2919.14(E)(4): In some sense, the findings required by R.”
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.