Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2925
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2925.50 (2026)

Conviction or acquittal under federal drug abuse control laws bar to state prosecution

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
July 22, 1998
Latest Legislation:
Senate Bill 66 - 122nd General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

If a violation of this chapter is a violation of the federal drug abuse control laws, as defined in section 3719.01 of the Revised Code, a conviction or acquittal under the federal drug abuse control laws for the same act is a bar to prosecution in this state.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1999–2024 · leading case: State v. Gutierrez, 2017 Ohio 1147 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Gutierrez, 2017 Ohio 1147 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 7× “16 CAA 07 0030 4 {¶ 7} On May 25, 2016, appellant filed a motion to dismiss with the state court, claiming R.C. 2925.50 barred his prosecution in the state of Ohio.”
United States v. Gibbs, 182 F.3d 408 (6th Cir. 1999). “See Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2925.50 (Banks-Baldwin West 1997 & Supp.”
State v. Mott, 2023 Ohio 2006 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 14× “He argued that his guilty plea in the federal case prohibited the state from pursuing the charged offenses pursuant to R.C. 2925.50, which states: 1 Appellant was barred from possessing a firearm in light of his August 29, 2006 conviction for distribution of cocaine in United…”
State v. Mott, 2021 Ohio 3854 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 5× “{¶ 4} On December 10, 2019, appellant, citing R.C. 2925.50, moved to dismiss the case that was brought by the state.”
Gutierrez v. Gray, 2024 Ohio 2128 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 9× “On May 25, 2015, appellant filed a motion to dismiss with the state court, claiming R.C. 2925.50 barred his prosecution in the state of Ohio.”
Gutierrez v. Burchinal (S.D. Ohio 2022). · cites it 2× “The trial court alternatively determined that section 2925.50 was inapplicable because Gutierrez “in his federal case was not prosecuted for, convicted of, or punished for the offenses that are at issue in” his state case.”
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.