(A) No person, knowing that an official proceeding or investigation is in progress, or is about to be or likely to be instituted, shall do any of the following:
(1) Alter, destroy, conceal, or remove any record, document, or thing, with purpose to impair its value or availability as evidence in such proceeding or investigation;
(2) Make, present, or use any record, document, or thing, knowing it to be false and with purpose to mislead a public official who is or may be engaged in such proceeding or investigation, or with purpose to corrupt the outcome of any such proceeding or investigation.
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of tampering with evidence, a felony of the third degree.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,205
cases (477 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: State v. Shine-Johnson, 2018-Ohio-3347, 117 N.E.3d 986.
State v. Shine-Johnson, 2018-Ohio-3347, 117 N.E.3d 986. · cites it 8ד02; and one count of tampering with evidence, in violation of R.C. 2921.12(A), arising from the fatal shooting of appellant's father, Joseph Bythewood ("Joe").”
State v. Martin (Slip Opinion), 2017-Ohio-7556. · cites it 5דKnowledge of Likely Investigation {¶ 115} Martin also argues that the state did not prove that when he burned the clothing, he knew “that an official proceeding or investigation [was] in progress, or [was] about to be or likely to be instituted,” R.”
State v. Straley (Slip Opinion), 2014-Ohio-2139, 11 N.E.3d 1175. · cites it 7ד11(A); and tampering with evidence, a felony of the third degree, in violation of R.C. 2921.12(A). She filed a motion to suppress all the statements she had made to law enforcement.”
State v. McKelton (Slip Opinion), 2016-Ohio-5735, 70 N.E.3d 508. · cites it 2ד02(A)(2); tampering with evidence, R.C. 2921.12(A)(1); and intimidating a witness in a criminal case, R.”
State v. Shepherd, 2020-Ohio-3915. · cites it 12ד12 sets forth the elements of the offense of tampering with evidence and provides, in relevant part: “No person, knowing that an official proceeding or investigation is in progress, or is about to be or likely to be instituted, shall * * * [a]lter, destroy, conceal, or remove…”
State v. Urbin, 772 N.E.2d 1239 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 2002). · cites it 8ד12(A)(1): {¶ 28} “No person, knowing that an official proceeding or investigation is in progress, or is about to be or likely to be instituted, shall do any of the following: {¶ 29} “(1) Alter, destroy, conceal, or remove any record, document, or thing, with purpose to impair…”
State v. Rock, 2014-Ohio-1786. · cites it 9ד13-13-38 proceeding or investigation is in progress, or is about to be or likely to be instituted, shall * * * [a]lter, destroy, conceal, or remove any record, document, or thing, with purpose to impair its value or availability as evidence in such proceeding or investigation *…”
Jacobson v. Kaforey (Slip Opinion), 2016-Ohio-8434, 75 N.E.3d 203. · cites it 2דIn affirming the dismissal of the claim, the court stated: Arguably, [the tampering-with-evidence statute, R.C. 2921.12], coupled with R.C. 2307.60, does create a civil action for intentional spoliation of evidence.”
State v. Simes, 2016-Ohio-7300. · cites it 6ד25(A); and (4) tampering with evidence, in violation of R.C. 2921.12(A)(1). Appellant pled not guilty to the indictment, and the matter proceeded to trial.”
State v. Evans, 2020-Ohio-3968. · cites it 6ד02(A)(1) (Counts 2 and 4); two counts of tampering with evidence in violation of R.C. 2921.12(A)(1) (C0unts 16 and 20); and single counts of felonious assault in violation of R.”
State v. McGee, 2016-Ohio-7510. · cites it 4ד12(A) and tampering with evidence under R.C. 2921.12(A)(1), because the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to support those convictions and they were against the manifest weight of the evidence.”
State v. Brown, 2017-Ohio-8416, 99 N.E.3d 1135. · cites it 2דHe was subsequently indicted on one count of tampering with evidence in violation of R.C. 2921.12(A)(1). The State filed a bill of particulars in both cases.”
State v. Martin (Slip Opinion), 2017-Ohio-7556. “Knowledge of Likely Investigation {¶ 115} Martin also argues that the state did not prove that when he burned the clothing, he knew “that an official proceeding or investigation [was] in progress, or [was] about to be or likely to be instituted,” R.”
State v. Shine-Johnson, 2018-Ohio-3347, 117 N.E.3d 986. “02; and one count of tampering with evidence, in violation of R.C. 2921.12(A), arising from the fatal shooting of appellant's father, Joseph Bythewood ("Joe").”
State v. Straley (Slip Opinion), 2014-Ohio-2139, 11 N.E.3d 1175. “11(A); and tampering with evidence, a felony of the third degree, in violation of R.C. 2921.12(A). She filed a motion to suppress all the statements she had made to law enforcement.”
State v. Rock, 2014-Ohio-1786. “13-13-38 proceeding or investigation is in progress, or is about to be or likely to be instituted, shall * * * [a]lter, destroy, conceal, or remove any record, document, or thing, with purpose to impair its value or availability as evidence in such proceeding or investigation *…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2921.12(A)(1): 908 cases
State v. Shine-Johnson, 2018-Ohio-3347, 117 N.E.3d 986. “02; and one count of tampering with evidence, in violation of R.C. 2921.12(A), arising from the fatal shooting of appellant's father, Joseph Bythewood ("Joe").”
State v. Straley (Slip Opinion), 2014-Ohio-2139, 11 N.E.3d 1175. “11(A); and tampering with evidence, a felony of the third degree, in violation of R.C. 2921.12(A). She filed a motion to suppress all the statements she had made to law enforcement.”
State v. McKelton (Slip Opinion), 2016-Ohio-5735, 70 N.E.3d 508. “02(A)(2); tampering with evidence, R.C. 2921.12(A)(1); and intimidating a witness in a criminal case, R.”
State v. Martin (Slip Opinion), 2017-Ohio-7556. “Knowledge of Likely Investigation {¶ 115} Martin also argues that the state did not prove that when he burned the clothing, he knew “that an official proceeding or investigation [was] in progress, or [was] about to be or likely to be instituted,” R.”
State v. Shepherd, 2020-Ohio-3915. “12 sets forth the elements of the offense of tampering with evidence and provides, in relevant part: “No person, knowing that an official proceeding or investigation is in progress, or is about to be or likely to be instituted, shall * * * [a]lter, destroy, conceal, or remove…”
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.