(A) No person who acquires, possesses, or carries a firearm or dangerous ordnance in violation of section 2923.13 or 2923.17 of the Revised Code shall be prosecuted for such violation, if he reports his possession of firearms or dangerous ordnance to any law enforcement authority, describes the firearms of dangerous ordnance in his possession and where they may be found, and voluntarily surrenders the firearms or dangerous ordnance to the law enforcement authority. A surrender is not voluntary if it occurs when the person is taken into custody or during a pursuit or attempt to take the person into custody, under circumstances indicating that the surrender is made under threat of force.
(B) No person in violation of section 2923.13 of the Revised Code solely by reason of his being under indictment shall be prosecuted for such violation if, within ten days after service of the indictment, he voluntarily surrenders the firearms and dangerous ordnance in his possession to any law enforcement authority pursuant to division (A) of this section, for safekeeping pending disposition of the indictment or of an application for relief under section 2923.14 of the Revised Code.
(C) Evidence obtained from or by reason of an application or proceeding under section 2923.14 of the Revised Code for relief from disability, shall not be used in a prosecution of the applicant for any violation of section 2923.13 of the Revised Code.
(D) Evidence obtained from or by reason of an application under section 2923.18 of the Revised Code for a permit to possess dangerous ordnance, shall not be used in a prosecution of the applicant for any violation of section 2923.13 or 2923.17 of the Revised Code.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1995–2026 · leading case: State v. Blankenship, 657 N.E.2d 559 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995).
State v. Blankenship, 657 N.E.2d 559 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2דR.C. 2923.23(A) grants limited immunity to a defendant charged with a violation of R.”
State v. Johnson, 2010 Ohio 6301 (Ohio 2010). · cites it 2דThe majority includes R.C. 2923.23(A)(3), the statute forbidding having weapons while under a disability (“WUD”), in this category of cases.”
State v. Carswell, 2021 Ohio 3379 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2דIt was clear from the record that the indictment charged the correct statute, the evidence presented at trial fit within the statute, the jury was instructed on the elements, and at no point were any elements in R.”
State v. Birt, 2013 Ohio 1379 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “61 (theft offenses), R.C. 2923.23(A) (engaging in "pattern of corrupt activity"), R.”
State v. Smith, 2020 Ohio 5316 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “The state also alleged that Smith knowingly had a firearm while having been convicted of a felony offense of violence in violation of R.C. 2923.23(A)(2) (having a weapon under disability).”
State v. Ulmer, 2016 Ohio 2873 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2ד03(A)(2) & (C)(1)(f); 5) possession of criminal tools, a felony of the fifth degree, in violation of R.C. 2923.23(A) and 2923.24(C); 6) possession of criminal tools, a felony of the fifth degree, in violation of R.”
State v. Crawford, 2013 Ohio 1659 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “01(A)(2) and (3); and Counts 11 and 12, having a weapon while under a disability in violation of R.C. 2923.23(A)(2), with a forfeiture specification.”
State v. Maddox, 2013 Ohio 3140 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “02(A); and two counts of having a weapon while under a disability in violation of R.C. 2923.23(A)(2) and (3). The felonious assault and attempted murder charges carried one- and three-year firearm specifications.”
State v. Kennedy, 2024 Ohio 66 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). “As discussed, Kennedy’s judicial bias claim is barred by res judicata or otherwise fails to satisfy the requirements of R.C. 2923.23(A)(1)(b). The third and seventh assignments of error are overruled.”
State v. Mendell, 945 N.E.2d 1130 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010). “Finally, he contends that he voluntarily surrendered his weapons prior to the search, thereby rendering him statutorily immune from prosecution as provided for in R.C. 2923.23(A). {¶2} We conclude that the trial court erred in overruling the motion to suppress, because it failed…”
State v. Milancuk, 2020 Ohio 1607 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “322(A)(2), second-degree felonies, and one count of possessing criminal tools pursuant to R.C. 2923.23(A), a fifth-degree felony. He pled not guilty on September 26, 2018, and the case proceeded to a bench trial on February 21, 2019.”
State v. Patterson, 2020 Ohio 4832 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “R.C. 2923.23(A), possession of criminal tools, a fifth-degree felony; 6.”
State v. Blankenship, 657 N.E.2d 559 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995). “R.C. 2923.23(A) grants limited immunity to a defendant charged with a violation of R.”
State v. Birt, 2013 Ohio 1379 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “61 (theft offenses), R.C. 2923.23(A) (engaging in "pattern of corrupt activity"), R.”
State v. Ulmer, 2016 Ohio 2873 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “03(A)(2) & (C)(1)(f); 5) possession of criminal tools, a felony of the fifth degree, in violation of R.C. 2923.23(A) and 2923.24(C); 6) possession of criminal tools, a felony of the fifth degree, in violation of R.”
State v. Mendell, 945 N.E.2d 1130 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010). “Finally, he contends that he voluntarily surrendered his weapons prior to the search, thereby rendering him statutorily immune from prosecution as provided for in R.C. 2923.23(A). {¶2} We conclude that the trial court erred in overruling the motion to suppress, because it failed…”
State v. Milancuk, 2020 Ohio 1607 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “322(A)(2), second-degree felonies, and one count of possessing criminal tools pursuant to R.C. 2923.23(A), a fifth-degree felony. He pled not guilty on September 26, 2018, and the case proceeded to a bench trial on February 21, 2019.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.23(A)(1)(b) — 1 case
State v. Kennedy, 2024 Ohio 66 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). “As discussed, Kennedy’s judicial bias claim is barred by res judicata or otherwise fails to satisfy the requirements of R.C. 2923.23(A)(1)(b). The third and seventh assignments of error are overruled.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.23(A)(2) — 4 cases
State v. Smith, 2020 Ohio 5316 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “The state also alleged that Smith knowingly had a firearm while having been convicted of a felony offense of violence in violation of R.C. 2923.23(A)(2) (having a weapon under disability).”
State v. Crawford, 2013 Ohio 1659 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “01(A)(2) and (3); and Counts 11 and 12, having a weapon while under a disability in violation of R.C. 2923.23(A)(2), with a forfeiture specification.”
State v. Maddox, 2013 Ohio 3140 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “02(A); and two counts of having a weapon while under a disability in violation of R.C. 2923.23(A)(2) and (3). The felonious assault and attempted murder charges carried one- and three-year firearm specifications.”
State v. Johnson, 2010 Ohio 6301 (Ohio 2010). “The majority includes R.C. 2923.23(A)(3), the statute forbidding having weapons while under a disability (“WUD”), in this category of cases.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.23(B) — 1 case
State v. Carswell, 2021 Ohio 3379 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “It was clear from the record that the indictment charged the correct statute, the evidence presented at trial fit within the statute, the jury was instructed on the elements, and at no point were any elements in 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.