(A) No person who is confined in a detention facility, with intent to harass, annoy, threaten, or alarm another person, shall cause or attempt to cause the other person to come into contact with blood, semen, urine, feces, or another bodily substance by throwing the bodily substance at the other person, by expelling the bodily substance upon the other person, or in any other manner.
(B) No person, with intent to harass, annoy, threaten, or alarm a law enforcement officer, shall cause or attempt to cause the law enforcement officer to come into contact with blood, semen, urine, feces, or another bodily substance by throwing the bodily substance at the law enforcement officer, by expelling the bodily substance upon the law enforcement officer, or in any other manner.
(C) No person, with knowledge that the person is a carrier of the virus that causes acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, is a carrier of a hepatitis virus, or is infected with tuberculosis and with intent to harass, annoy, threaten, or alarm another person, shall cause or attempt to cause the other person to come into contact with blood, semen, urine, feces, or another bodily substance by throwing the bodily substance at the other person, by expelling the bodily substance upon the other person, or in any other manner.
(D) Whoever violates this section is guilty of harassment with a bodily substance. A violation of division (A) or (B) of this section is a felony of the fifth degree. A violation of division (C) of this section is a felony of the third degree.
(E)(1) The court, on request of the prosecutor, or the law enforcement authority responsible for the investigation of the violation, shall cause a person who allegedly has committed a violation of this section to submit to one or more appropriate tests to determine if the person is a carrier of the virus that causes acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, is a carrier of a hepatitis virus, or is infected with tuberculosis.
(2) The court shall charge the offender with the costs of the test or tests ordered under division (E)(1) of this section unless the court determines that the accused is unable to pay, in which case the costs shall be charged to the entity that operates the detention facility in which the alleged offense occurred.
(F) This section does not apply to a person who is hospitalized, institutionalized, or confined in a facility operated by the department of mental health and addiction services or the department of developmental disabilities.
Last updated October 20, 2025 at 2:11 PM
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 68
cases (30 in the last 5 years), 1998–2025 · leading case: State v. May, 2014-Ohio-1542.
State v. May, 2014-Ohio-1542. · cites it 12דR.C. 2921.38(B) is Constitutional {¶ 31} May’s third assignment of error states: Properly construed, R.”
State v. Hammock, 2012-Ohio-419. · cites it 8דHammock appeals from her conviction and sentence on one count of harassment with a bodily substance in violation of R.C. 2921.38(B). 2 {¶ 2} Hammock advances three assignments of error on appeal.”
Mayer v. Bristow, 740 N.E.2d 656 (Ohio 2000). · cites it 4ד35(A) and two counts of Harassment by Inmate in violation of R.C. § 2921.38(A). The Friday before Bristow pled guilty to the charges in Case No.”
State v. Huber, 2013-Ohio-97. · cites it 10ד: {¶1} Defendant-appellant, Joseph Huber, appeals from the trial court’s judgment, rendered after a bench trial, finding him guilty of harassment with a bodily substance in violation of R.C. 2921.38(A). Finding no merit to the appeal, we affirm.”
State v. Worthen, 2021-Ohio-2788. “{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant Diamond Worthen pled guilty to harassment by an inmate (bodily substance) in violation of R.C. 2921.38(A), a felony of the fifth degree, and was sentenced to 12 months in prison, to be served concurrently with a sentence in another case.”
State v. Johnson, 2019-Ohio-3314. · cites it 3ד13(A)(C)(4)(a), AND TWO FELONY COUNTS OF HARASSMENT WITH A BODILY SUBSTANCE IN VIOLATION OF R.C. 2921.38(B). {¶6} In her first assignment of error, Ms.”
State v. Pierce, 2017-Ohio-8578, 100 N.E.3d 860. · cites it 2ד13(A) with a furthermore specification alleging that the victim was a peace officer; two counts of harassment by inmate, fifth-degree felonies in violation of R.C. 2921.38(B) ; and resisting arrest, a second-degree misdemeanor in violation of R.”
State v. Lee, 2022-Ohio-248. “13(A), a felony of the third degree, and one count of harassment with a bodily substance in violation of R.C. 2921.38(A), a felony of the fifth degree.”
State v. Walker, 2022-Ohio-1684, 192 N.E.3d 1159. “13 and one count of harassment with a bodily substance under R.C. 2921.38, as well as the jury verdict convicting him of one of the assault charges.”
City of Cleveland v. Adkins, 806 N.E.2d 1007 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 2004). “R.C. 2921.38, a fifth degree felony. 6 . State v.”
State v. Blackmon, 719 N.E.2d 970 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. 1998). · cites it 3דIn September 1997, defendant-appellant, Thomas Blackmon, was indicted by a grand jury for harassment by an inmate in violation of R.C. 2921.38(A). In *145 December 1997, appellant filed a motion for continuance, citing a conflict with his scheduled trial and his observance of a…”
State v. Burns, 2012-Ohio-2698. “11(A)(2)(D); six counts of harassment with a bodily substance, fifth-degree felonies in violation of R.C. 2921.38(A)(D); and one count of assault, a fifth-degree felony in violation of R.”
Mayer v. Bristow, 740 N.E.2d 656 (Ohio 2000). “35(A) and two counts of Harassment by Inmate in violation of R.C. § 2921.38(A). The Friday before Bristow pled guilty to the charges in Case No.”
State v. Huber, 2013-Ohio-97. “: {¶1} Defendant-appellant, Joseph Huber, appeals from the trial court’s judgment, rendered after a bench trial, finding him guilty of harassment with a bodily substance in violation of R.C. 2921.38(A). Finding no merit to the appeal, we affirm.”
State v. Worthen, 2021-Ohio-2788. “{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant Diamond Worthen pled guilty to harassment by an inmate (bodily substance) in violation of R.C. 2921.38(A), a felony of the fifth degree, and was sentenced to 12 months in prison, to be served concurrently with a sentence in another case.”
State v. Lee, 2022-Ohio-248. “13(A), a felony of the third degree, and one count of harassment with a bodily substance in violation of R.C. 2921.38(A), a felony of the fifth degree.”
State v. Blackmon, 719 N.E.2d 970 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. 1998). “In September 1997, defendant-appellant, Thomas Blackmon, was indicted by a grand jury for harassment by an inmate in violation of R.C. 2921.38(A). In *145 December 1997, appellant filed a motion for continuance, citing a conflict with his scheduled trial and his observance of a…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2921.38(A)(D): 3 cases
State v. Burns, 2012-Ohio-2698. “11(A)(2)(D); six counts of harassment with a bodily substance, fifth-degree felonies in violation of R.C. 2921.38(A)(D); and one count of assault, a fifth-degree felony in violation of R.”
State v. May, 2014-Ohio-1542. “R.C. 2921.38(B) is Constitutional {¶ 31} May’s third assignment of error states: Properly construed, R.”
State v. Hammock, 2012-Ohio-419. “Hammock appeals from her conviction and sentence on one count of harassment with a bodily substance in violation of R.C. 2921.38(B). 2 {¶ 2} Hammock advances three assignments of error on appeal.”
State v. Johnson, 2019-Ohio-3314. “13(A)(C)(4)(a), AND TWO FELONY COUNTS OF HARASSMENT WITH A BODILY SUBSTANCE IN VIOLATION OF R.C. 2921.38(B). {¶6} In her first assignment of error, Ms.”
State v. Pierce, 2017-Ohio-8578, 100 N.E.3d 860. “13(A) with a furthermore specification alleging that the victim was a peace officer; two counts of harassment by inmate, fifth-degree felonies in violation of R.C. 2921.38(B) ; and resisting arrest, a second-degree misdemeanor in violation of R.”
State v. Huber, 2013-Ohio-97. “: {¶1} Defendant-appellant, Joseph Huber, appeals from the trial court’s judgment, rendered after a bench trial, finding him guilty of harassment with a bodily substance in violation of R.C. 2921.38(A). Finding no merit to the appeal, we affirm.”
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.