Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2925
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2925.42 (2026)

Criminal forfeiture of property relating to felony drug abuse offense

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
July 1, 2007
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 241 - 126th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) If a person is convicted of or pleads guilty to a felony drug abuse offense, or a juvenile is found by a juvenile court to be a delinquent child for an act that, if committed by an adult, would be a felony drug abuse offense, and derives profits or other proceeds from the offense or act, the court that imposes sentence or an order of disposition upon the offender or delinquent child, in lieu of any fine that the court is otherwise authorized or required to impose, may impose upon the offender or delinquent child a fine of not more than twice the gross profits or other proceeds so derived.

(B) Notwithstanding any contrary provision of section 3719.21 of the Revised Code, all fines imposed pursuant to this section shall be paid by the clerk of the court to the county, municipal corporation, township, park district, as created pursuant to section 511.18 or 1545.01 of the Revised Code, or state law enforcement agencies in this state that were primarily responsible for or involved in making the arrest of, and in prosecuting, the offender. However, no fine so imposed shall be paid to a law enforcement agency unless the agency has adopted a written internal control policy under division (F)(2) of section 2925.03 of the Revised Code that addresses the use of the fine moneys that it receives under this division and division (F)(1) of section 2925.03 of the Revised Code. The fines imposed and paid pursuant to this division shall be used by the law enforcement agencies to subsidize their efforts pertaining to drug offenses, in accordance with the written internal control policy adopted by the recipient agency under division (F)(2) of section 2925.03 of the Revised Code.

(C) As used in this section:

(1) "Law enforcement agencies" includes, but is not limited to, the state board of pharmacy and the office of a prosecutor.

(2) "Prosecutor" has the same meaning as in section 2935.01 of the Revised Code.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33 cases, 1994–2019 · leading case: State v. Hill, 635 N.E.2d 1248 (Ohio 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Hill, 635 N.E.2d 1248 (Ohio 1994). · cites it 13× “42(A)(1)(b) R.C. 2925.42 permits forfeiture of certain property in connection with specific felony drug abuse offenses.”
State v. Hill, 1994 Ohio 12 (Ohio 1994). · cites it 17× “] Criminal law—Drug offenses—Forfeiture of property relating to felony drug abuse offense—R.C. 2925.42—Prior to entering order of forfeiture, trial court must make an independent determination whether forfeiture of that property is an "excessive fine" prohibited by the Excessive…”
State v. Woodbridge, 791 N.E.2d 1035 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 13× “The indictment included a number of forfeiture specifications pursuant to R.C. 2925.42, one of which involved a 1993 Yukon truck allegedly belonging to appellant.”
State v. Vu, 2012 Ohio 746 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 8× “{¶44} In her twelfth assignment of error, Vu argues that the trial court committed plain error by instructing the jury that the State had to prove forfeiture was warranted under a preponderance of the evidence standard rather than the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable…”
State v. Harris, 2012 Ohio 1908 (Ohio 2012). · cites it 4× “In Hill, we held that forfeiture of property pursuant to R.C. 2925.42 was a form of punishment for the specified offense of felony drug abuse.”
State v. Kiser, 2017 Ohio 4222 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 6× “Kiser argues that it was plain error for the trial court to order the payment because there was no evidence that the task force complied with R.”
State v. Hoang, 2012 Ohio 3741 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “Moreover, he fails to reference the forfeiture statute, R.C. 2925.42, or otherwise cite any law for the proposition that the preponderance of the evidence burden of proof was inapplicable.”
State v. Vu, 2012 Ohio 2002 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 4× “All additional seven charges also contained forfeiture specifications under R.C. 2925.42(A)(1). The trial court later granted the State’s request to consolidate Mr.”
State v. Ziepfel, 669 N.E.2d 299 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to R.C. 2925.42, the defendant was ordered to forfeit his apartment building valued at approximately $110,000.”
State ex rel. Sensible Norwood v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 5919 (Ohio 2016). “, R.C. 2925.42. {¶ 17} (3) Section 513.15(s) prohibits the suspension of a driver’s or commercial driver’s license or permit for any length of time based on the drug-abuse offenses in the proposed ordinance.”
State v. Brown, 668 N.E.2d 514 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995). “In accordance with R.C. 2925.42, count four also contained a specification subjecting appellant’s property, namely $5,871, to criminal forfeiture.”
State v. Perkins, 2014 Ohio 1863 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “Hill was distinguished because the criminal statute involved in Hill (R.C. 2925.42) “required an offender to lose any right to possession of property and to forfeit to the state any interest the defendant may have had in property that was an integral part of the criminal…”
Show all 33 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2925.42(A) — 1 case
State v. Kiser, 2017 Ohio 4222 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “Kiser argues that it was plain error for the trial court to order the payment because there was no evidence that the task force complied with R.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2925.42(A)(1) — 3 cases
State v. Vu, 2012 Ohio 746 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “{¶44} In her twelfth assignment of error, Vu argues that the trial court committed plain error by instructing the jury that the State had to prove forfeiture was warranted under a preponderance of the evidence standard rather than the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable…”
State v. Hoang, 2012 Ohio 3741 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “Moreover, he fails to reference the forfeiture statute, R.C. 2925.42, or otherwise cite any law for the proposition that the preponderance of the evidence burden of proof was inapplicable.”
State v. Vu, 2012 Ohio 2002 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “All additional seven charges also contained forfeiture specifications under R.C. 2925.42(A)(1). The trial court later granted the State’s request to consolidate Mr.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2925.42(A)(1)(a) — 4 cases
State v. Vu, 2012 Ohio 746 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “{¶44} In her twelfth assignment of error, Vu argues that the trial court committed plain error by instructing the jury that the State had to prove forfeiture was warranted under a preponderance of the evidence standard rather than the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable…”
State v. Vu, 2012 Ohio 2002 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “All additional seven charges also contained forfeiture specifications under R.C. 2925.42(A)(1). The trial court later granted the State’s request to consolidate Mr.”
Dayton Police Dept. v. Thompson, 2012 Ohio 2660 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012).
State v. Quick, 06-Ca-142 (5-24-2007), 2007 Ohio 2623 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2925.42(A)(1)(b) — 9 cases
State v. Hill, 635 N.E.2d 1248 (Ohio 1994). “42(A)(1)(b) R.C. 2925.42 permits forfeiture of certain property in connection with specific felony drug abuse offenses.”
State v. Hill, 1994 Ohio 12 (Ohio 1994). “] Criminal law—Drug offenses—Forfeiture of property relating to felony drug abuse offense—R.C. 2925.42—Prior to entering order of forfeiture, trial court must make an independent determination whether forfeiture of that property is an "excessive fine" prohibited by the Excessive…”
State v. Harris, 2012 Ohio 1908 (Ohio 2012). “In Hill, we held that forfeiture of property pursuant to R.C. 2925.42 was a form of punishment for the specified offense of felony drug abuse.”
State v. Woodbridge, 791 N.E.2d 1035 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003). “The indictment included a number of forfeiture specifications pursuant to R.C. 2925.42, one of which involved a 1993 Yukon truck allegedly belonging to appellant.”
State v. Ziepfel, 669 N.E.2d 299 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995). “Pursuant to R.C. 2925.42, the defendant was ordered to forfeit his apartment building valued at approximately $110,000.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2925.42(B) — 1 case
State v. Kiser, 2017 Ohio 4222 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “Kiser argues that it was plain error for the trial court to order the payment because there was no evidence that the task force complied with R.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2925.42(B)(1) — 1 case
State v. Bonner, 2012 Ohio 1166 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2925.42(B)(1)(a) — 1 case
State v. Woodbridge, 791 N.E.2d 1035 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003). “The indictment included a number of forfeiture specifications pursuant to R.C. 2925.42, one of which involved a 1993 Yukon truck allegedly belonging to appellant.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2925.42(B)(3)(a) — 3 cases
State v. Vu, 2012 Ohio 746 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “{¶44} In her twelfth assignment of error, Vu argues that the trial court committed plain error by instructing the jury that the State had to prove forfeiture was warranted under a preponderance of the evidence standard rather than the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable…”
State v. Woodbridge, 791 N.E.2d 1035 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003). “The indictment included a number of forfeiture specifications pursuant to R.C. 2925.42, one of which involved a 1993 Yukon truck allegedly belonging to appellant.”
State v. Vu, 2012 Ohio 2002 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “All additional seven charges also contained forfeiture specifications under R.C. 2925.42(A)(1). The trial court later granted the State’s request to consolidate Mr.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2925.42(B)(5)(a) — 1 case
State v. Woodbridge, 791 N.E.2d 1035 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003). “The indictment included a number of forfeiture specifications pursuant to R.C. 2925.42, one of which involved a 1993 Yukon truck allegedly belonging to appellant.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2925.42(F) — 1 case
State v. Woodbridge, 791 N.E.2d 1035 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003). “The indictment included a number of forfeiture specifications pursuant to R.C. 2925.42, one of which involved a 1993 Yukon truck allegedly belonging to appellant.”
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.