(A) No person, with purpose to corrupt a public servant or party official, or improperly to influence a public servant or party official with respect to the discharge of the public servant's or party official's duty, whether before or after the public servant or party official is elected, appointed, qualified, employed, summoned, or sworn, shall promise, offer, or give any valuable thing or valuable benefit.
(B) No person, either before or after the person is elected, appointed, qualified, employed, summoned, or sworn as a public servant or party official, shall knowingly solicit or accept for self or another person any valuable thing or valuable benefit to corrupt or improperly influence the person or another public servant or party official with respect to the discharge of the person's or the other public servant's or party official's duty.
(C) No person, with purpose to corrupt a witness or improperly to influence a witness with respect to the witness's testimony in an official proceeding, either before or after the witness is subpoenaed or sworn, shall promise, offer, or give the witness or another person any valuable thing or valuable benefit.
(D) No person, either before or after the person is subpoenaed or sworn as a witness, shall knowingly solicit or accept for self or another person any valuable thing or valuable benefit to corrupt or improperly influence self or another person with respect to testimony given in an official proceeding.
(E) No person, with purpose to corrupt a director, officer, or employee of a municipal school district transformation alliance established under section 3311.86 of the Revised Code, or improperly to influence a director, officer, or employee of a municipal school district transformation alliance with respect to the discharge of the director's, officer's, or employee's duties, whether before or after the director, officer, or employee is appointed or employed, shall promise, offer, or give the director, officer, or employee any valuable thing or valuable benefit.
(F) No person, either before or after the person is appointed or employed as a director, officer, or employee of a municipal school district transformation alliance established under section 3311.86 of the Revised Code, shall knowingly solicit or accept for self or another person any valuable thing or valuable benefit to corrupt or improperly influence the person or another director, officer, or employee of a municipal school district transformation alliance with respect to the discharge of the person's or other director's, officer's, or employee's duties.
(G) As used in this section, "public servant" includes a humane society agent approved under section 1717.06 of the Revised Code.
(H) Whoever violates this section is guilty of bribery, a felony of the third degree.
(I) A public servant or party official, or director, officer, or employee of a municipal school district transformation alliance established under section 3311.86 of the Revised Code, who is convicted of bribery is forever disqualified from holding any public office, employment, or position of trust in this state.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 75
cases (16 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: State v. Dahms, 2017 Ohio 4221 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
State v. Dahms, 2017 Ohio 4221 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 10ד{¶58} The criminal offense of bribery is codified in R.C. 2921.02, which provides, in relevant part: -31- Case No.”
State v. Andrews, 2024 Ohio 5023 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 14דAndrews (“Andrews”), of bribery in violation of R.C. 2921.02(C), a third-degree felony. On appeal Andrews maintains that his conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, is not supported by sufficient evidence, and that he suffered prejudice due to several improper…”
State v. Bissantz, 532 N.E.2d 126 (Ohio 1988). · cites it 11דMoreover, we would again stress that convictions under R.C. 2921.02 or 2921.41 are not included among those which make one ineligible for expungement proceedings.”
State v. Mole (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 5124 (Ohio 2016). · cites it 2ד03(A)(6) and (A)(11) (sexual battery of confined or detained person under officer’s authority). But we do not agree that a person’s status as a peace officer justifies the imposition of different sexual-conduct standards in circumstances in which the officer’s status is…”
State v. Bissantz, 444 N.E.2d 92 (Ohio Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 11דAppellant was indicted for violating R.C. 2921.02(B), which provides as follows: “No person, either before or after he is elected, appointed, qualified, employed, summoned, or sworn as a public servant or party official, shall knowingly solicit or accept any valuable thing or…”
State v. Bradford, 2013 Ohio 480 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 11ד: {¶1} Chad Bradford appeals his conviction in the Adams County Court of Common Pleas after a jury found him guilty of bribery, in violation of R.C. 2921.02(D). Bradford raises three assignments of error, arguing 1) the evidence was insufficient to convict him of bribery because…”
State v. Yavorcik, 2018 Ohio 1824 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 4ד01(A)(2), a second-degree felony; Count 8: March 1, 2008 to November 30, 2008-bribery, R.C. 2921.02(B), a third-degree felony; Count 9: March 1, 2008 to November 30, 2008-bribery, R.”
Dottore v. Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., 2014 Ohio 25 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4דIn support of their motion for judgment on the pleadings, Vorys and its attorneys argued in part that the Dottore Plaintiffs had failed to plead qualifying predicate acts that would support a pattern of racketeering activity.”
State v. Flors, 528 N.E.2d 950 (Ohio Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 3דR.C. 2921.02 (bribery): “(A) No person, with purpose to corrupt a public servant * * * or improperly to influence him with respect to the discharge of his duty, * * * shall promise, offer, or give any valuable thing or valuable benefit.”
State v. Ross, 2012 Ohio 536 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 4ד55(A)(1), (A)(2), (A)(3), and (A)(4), respectively; (4) three counts of bribery, in violation of R.C. 2921.02(B); (5) eight counts of having an unlawful interest in a public contract, in violation of R.”
State ex rel. Gains v. Rossi, 716 N.E.2d 204 (Ohio 1999). · cites it 2ד” Unlike R.C. 2921.02(F), which was at issue in State v.”
United States v. Dimora, 829 F. Supp. 2d 574 (N.D. Ohio 2011). · cites it 12דThis includes the Ohio statute governing bribery, Ohio Rev.Code § 2921.02, which Gabor claims is not implicated by either the Job Buying or Judicial Corruption scheme, because “Ohio state law does not outlaw conspiracy to commit bribery.”
State v. Flors, 528 N.E.2d 950 (Ohio Ct. App. 1987). “R.C. 2921.02 (bribery): “(A) No person, with purpose to corrupt a public servant * * * or improperly to influence him with respect to the discharge of his duty, * * * shall promise, offer, or give any valuable thing or valuable benefit.”
Dottore v. Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., 2014 Ohio 25 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “In support of their motion for judgment on the pleadings, Vorys and its attorneys argued in part that the Dottore Plaintiffs had failed to plead qualifying predicate acts that would support a pattern of racketeering activity.”
United States v. Dimora, 829 F. Supp. 2d 574 (N.D. Ohio 2011). “This includes the Ohio statute governing bribery, Ohio Rev.Code § 2921.02, which Gabor claims is not implicated by either the Job Buying or Judicial Corruption scheme, because “Ohio state law does not outlaw conspiracy to commit bribery.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2921.02(B) — 16 cases
State v. Bissantz, 444 N.E.2d 92 (Ohio Ct. App. 1982). “Appellant was indicted for violating R.C. 2921.02(B), which provides as follows: “No person, either before or after he is elected, appointed, qualified, employed, summoned, or sworn as a public servant or party official, shall knowingly solicit or accept any valuable thing or…”
State v. Yavorcik, 2018 Ohio 1824 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). “01(A)(2), a second-degree felony; Count 8: March 1, 2008 to November 30, 2008-bribery, R.C. 2921.02(B), a third-degree felony; Count 9: March 1, 2008 to November 30, 2008-bribery, R.”
State v. Ross, 2012 Ohio 536 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “55(A)(1), (A)(2), (A)(3), and (A)(4), respectively; (4) three counts of bribery, in violation of R.C. 2921.02(B); (5) eight counts of having an unlawful interest in a public contract, in violation of R.”
State v. Bissantz, 532 N.E.2d 126 (Ohio 1988). “Moreover, we would again stress that convictions under R.C. 2921.02 or 2921.41 are not included among those which make one ineligible for expungement proceedings.”
State v. Dahms, 2017 Ohio 4221 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “{¶58} The criminal offense of bribery is codified in R.C. 2921.02, which provides, in relevant part: -31- Case No.”
State v. Andrews, 2024 Ohio 5023 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). “Andrews (“Andrews”), of bribery in violation of R.C. 2921.02(C), a third-degree felony. On appeal Andrews maintains that his conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, is not supported by sufficient evidence, and that he suffered prejudice due to several improper…”
State v. Bradford, 2013 Ohio 480 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “: {¶1} Chad Bradford appeals his conviction in the Adams County Court of Common Pleas after a jury found him guilty of bribery, in violation of R.C. 2921.02(D). Bradford raises three assignments of error, arguing 1) the evidence was insufficient to convict him of bribery because…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2921.02(E) — 4 cases
State v. Ross, 2012 Ohio 536 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “55(A)(1), (A)(2), (A)(3), and (A)(4), respectively; (4) three counts of bribery, in violation of R.C. 2921.02(B); (5) eight counts of having an unlawful interest in a public contract, in violation of R.”
State v. Capko, 2 Ohio App. Unrep. 412 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2921.02(F) — 4 cases
State v. Bissantz, 532 N.E.2d 126 (Ohio 1988). “Moreover, we would again stress that convictions under R.C. 2921.02 or 2921.41 are not included among those which make one ineligible for expungement proceedings.”
State ex rel. Gains v. Rossi, 716 N.E.2d 204 (Ohio 1999). “” Unlike R.C. 2921.02(F), which was at issue in State v.”
In Re Forster, 161 Ohio App. 3d 627 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005).
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.