(A) No person shall knowingly demand, accept, or agree to accept anything of value in consideration of abandoning or agreeing to abandon a pending criminal prosecution.
(B) It is an affirmative defense to a charge under this section when both of the following apply:
(1) The pending prosecution involved is for a violation of section 2913.02 or 2913.11, division (B)(2) of section 2913.21, or section 2913.47 of the Revised Code, of which the actor under this section was the victim.
(2) The thing of value demanded, accepted, or agreed to be accepted, in consideration of abandoning or agreeing to abandon the prosecution, did not exceed an amount that the actor reasonably believed due him as restitution for the loss caused him by the offense.
(C) When a prosecuting witness abandons or agrees to abandon a prosecution under division (B) of this section, the abandonment or agreement in no way binds the state to abandoning the prosecution.
(D) Whoever violates this section is guilty of compounding a crime, a misdemeanor of the first degree.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1984–2020 · leading case: State v. Buchholz, 462 N.E.2d 1222 (Ohio 1984).
State v. Buchholz, 462 N.E.2d 1222 (Ohio 1984). “In support of this position, the learned judge aptly points out that Argersinger, supra, held that a defendant charged with a misdemeanor, even a traffic offense, must have counsel if he may be sentenced to jail, “but the right to counsel would not apply as a constitutional…”
State v. Schaub, 475 N.E.2d 1313 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1984). · cites it 2דIll “The trial court’s sentence of October 29, 1982 is indefinite, violating Ohio Revised Code Section 2921.21 [sic] and also prevents appellant from seeking ex-pungement under the statutory remedy provided by Ohio Revised Code Section 2953.”
State v. Black, 2016-Ohio-7901. “331(B), a misdemeanor of the first degree and one count of obstructing official business, in violation of R.C. 2921.21(A), a misdemeanor of the second degree.”
State v. Bush, 2020-Ohio-1229. “Accordingly, we decline to find the delay here to be so egregious as to presume prejudice. {¶28} Bush asserts for the first time on appeal that the delay of 21½ months impaired his “ability to obtain his personal financial information” to raise an affirmative defense under R.”
State v. Adams, 791 N.E.2d 1045 (Ohio Ct. App. 7th Dist. 2003). “44 and that appellant cannot be prosecuted for perjury she may have committed prior to the grant of immunity, including a prosecution based on R.C. 2921.21(D). Although R.C. 2945.44 does not expressly contain these limitations, it is necessary for the immunity statute to be so…”
State v. Ortiz, 2020-Ohio-4013. “The obstruction counts, in particular, were charged as follows: (1) a third-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2921.21(A)(4); (2) a third-degree felony in violation of R.”
State v. C.W.D., 2020-Ohio-4463, 158 N.E.3d 951. “pled guilty to compounding a crime, a fourth-degree misdemeanor in violation of R.C. 2921.21. Lee County, Florida case no.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2921.21(A): 1 case
State v. Black, 2016-Ohio-7901. “331(B), a misdemeanor of the first degree and one count of obstructing official business, in violation of R.C. 2921.21(A), a misdemeanor of the second degree.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2921.21(A)(4): 1 case
State v. Ortiz, 2020-Ohio-4013. “The obstruction counts, in particular, were charged as follows: (1) a third-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2921.21(A)(4); (2) a third-degree felony in violation of R.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2921.21(D): 2 cases
State v. Bush, 2020-Ohio-1229. “Accordingly, we decline to find the delay here to be so egregious as to presume prejudice. {¶28} Bush asserts for the first time on appeal that the delay of 21½ months impaired his “ability to obtain his personal financial information” to raise an affirmative defense under R.”
State v. Adams, 791 N.E.2d 1045 (Ohio Ct. App. 7th Dist. 2003). “44 and that appellant cannot be prosecuted for perjury she may have committed prior to the grant of immunity, including a prosecution based on R.C. 2921.21(D). Although R.C. 2945.44 does not expressly contain these limitations, it is necessary for the immunity statute to be so…”
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.