(A) In any criminal prosecution for a violation of this chapter or Chapter 3719. of the Revised Code, a laboratory report from the bureau of criminal identification and investigation, a laboratory operated by another law enforcement agency, or a laboratory established by or under the authority of an institution of higher education that has its main campus in this state and that is accredited by the association of American universities or the north central association of colleges and secondary schools, primarily for the purpose of providing scientific services to law enforcement agencies and signed by the person performing the analysis, stating that the substance that is the basis of the alleged offense has been weighed and analyzed and stating the findings as to the content, weight, and identity of the substance and that it contains any amount of a controlled substance and the number and description of unit dosages, is prima-facie evidence of the content, identity, and weight or the existence and number of unit dosages of the substance. In any criminal prosecution for a violation of section 2925.041 of the Revised Code or a violation of this chapter or Chapter 3719. of the Revised Code that is based on the possession of chemicals sufficient to produce a compound, mixture, preparation, or substance included in schedule I, II, III, IV, or V, a laboratory report from the bureau or from any laboratory that is operated or established as described in this division that is signed by the person performing the analysis, stating that the substances that are the basis of the alleged offense have been weighed and analyzed and stating the findings as to the content, weight, and identity of each of the substances, is prima-facie evidence of the content, identity, and weight of the substances.
Attached to that report shall be a copy of a notarized statement by the signer of the report giving the name of the signer and stating that the signer is an employee of the laboratory issuing the report and that performing the analysis is a part of the signer's regular duties, and giving an outline of the signer's education, training, and experience for performing an analysis of materials included under this section. The signer shall attest that scientifically accepted tests were performed with due caution, and that the evidence was handled in accordance with established and accepted procedures while in the custody of the laboratory.
(B) The prosecuting attorney shall serve a copy of the report on the attorney of record for the accused, or on the accused if the accused has no attorney, prior to any proceeding in which the report is to be used against the accused other than at a preliminary hearing or grand jury proceeding where the report may be used without having been previously served upon the accused.
(C) The report shall not be prima-facie evidence of the contents, identity, and weight or the existence and number of unit dosages of the substance if the accused or the accused's attorney demands the testimony of the person signing the report, by serving the demand upon the prosecuting attorney within seven days from the accused or the accused's attorney's receipt of the report. The time may be extended by a trial judge in the interests of justice.
(D) Any report issued for use under this section shall contain notice of the right of the accused to demand, and the manner in which the accused shall demand, the testimony of the person signing the report.
(E) Any person who is accused of a violation of this chapter or of Chapter 3719. of the Revised Code is entitled, upon written request made to the prosecuting attorney, to have a portion of the substance that is, or of each of the substances that are, the basis of the alleged violation preserved for the benefit of independent analysis performed by a laboratory analyst employed by the accused person, or, if the accused is indigent, by a qualified laboratory analyst appointed by the court. Such portion shall be a representative sample of the entire substance that is, or of each of the substances that are, the basis of the alleged violation and shall be of sufficient size, in the opinion of the court, to permit the accused's analyst to make a thorough scientific analysis concerning the identity of the substance or substances. The prosecuting attorney shall provide the accused's analyst with the sample portion at least fourteen days prior to trial, unless the trial is to be held in a court not of record or unless the accused person is charged with a minor misdemeanor, in which case the prosecuting attorney shall provide the accused's analyst with the sample portion at least three days prior to trial. If the prosecuting attorney determines that such a sample portion cannot be preserved and given to the accused's analyst, the prosecuting attorney shall so inform the accused person or his attorney. In such a circumstance, the accused person is entitled, upon written request made to the prosecuting attorney, to have the accused's privately employed or court appointed analyst present at an analysis of the substance that is, or the substances that are, the basis of the alleged violation, and, upon further written request, to receive copies of all recorded scientific data that result from the analysis and that can be used by an analyst in arriving at conclusions, findings, or opinions concerning the identity of the substance or substances subject to the analysis.
(F) In addition to the rights provided under division (E) of this section, any person who is accused of a violation of this chapter or of Chapter 3719. of the Revised Code that involves a bulk amount of a controlled substance, or any multiple thereof, or who is accused of a violation of section 2925.11 of the Revised Code, other than a minor misdemeanor violation, that involves marihuana, is entitled, upon written request made to the prosecuting attorney, to have a laboratory analyst of the accused's choice, or, if the accused is indigent, a qualified laboratory analyst appointed by the court present at a measurement or weighing of the substance that is the basis of the alleged violation. Also, the accused person is entitled, upon further written request, to receive copies of all recorded scientific data that result from the measurement or weighing and that can be used by an analyst in arriving at conclusions, findings, or opinions concerning the weight, volume, or number of unit doses of the substance subject to the measurement or weighing.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 81
cases (17 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case: State v. Pasqualone, 903 N.E.2d 270 (Ohio 2009).
State v. Pasqualone, 903 N.E.2d 270 (Ohio 2009). · cites it 40דUnder R.C. 2925.51, Pasqualone could have demanded that the analyst testify at his trial by following the statutory procedures upon his receipt of the analyst’s report prior to trial.”
State v. Deckard, 2017-Ohio-8469, 100 N.E.3d 53. · cites it 10דTHE TRIAL COURT DEPRIVED DECKARD OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION BY ADMITTING INTO EVIDENCE A LABORATORY REPORT UNDER NOTICE-AND-DEMAND STATUTE (R.C.2925.51)FOR THE PROSECUTION OF A CHARGE NOT WITHIN CHAPTERS 2925 OR 3719 OF THE REVISED CODE.”
State v. Smith, 2021-Ohio-2866. · cites it 7ד{¶71} The most frequently relied upon notice-and-demand statute is found in R.C. 2925.51. See Detienne, supra, at ¶ 26 .”
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009). · cites it 2דIn their simplest form, notice-and-demand statutes require the prosecution to provide notice to the defendant of its intent to use an analyst's report as evidence at trial, after which the defendant is given a period of time in which he may object to the admission of the…”
State v. Napier, 2020-Ohio-5457, 163 N.E.3d 1114. · cites it 20ד25, 1988)], we extended Godby, supra, to situations such as the case at bar so as to include those suspected of committing an offense within the ambit of R.C. 2925.51 as well as those formally charged with an offense.”
State v. Maston, 2018-Ohio-1948. · cites it 15ד51(A) provides, in relevant part: In any criminal prosecution for a violation of this chapter * * *, a laboratory report * * *, stating that the substance that is the basis of the alleged offense has been weighed and analyzed and stating the findings as to the content, weight,…”
State v. Hartman, 2016-Ohio-2883. · cites it 3דAlthough the Court in Pasqualone was addressing the potential error of admitting a laboratory report, without the testimony of the person who prepared the report, the holding in Pasqualone rests entirely on a statutory provision, R.C. 2925.51, that specifically provides that…”
State v. Barron, 2011-Ohio-2425. · cites it 13ד82527, 2003-Ohio-4569 , ¶12 (“We note, however, that R.C. 2925.51 does not provide a sanction for the state’s failure to provide a sample for independent analysis.”
State v. Underwood, 2010-Ohio-1, 922 N.E.2d 923. · cites it 2ד2d 270, ¶ 13-21 (a defendant who does not exercise the opportunity to demand the testimony of a laboratory analyst under R.C. 2925.51 waives his right to cross-examine the analyst).”
In re B.N.C., 2013-Ohio-4071. · cites it 27דHe also maintains that R.C. 2925.51, as written and applied, deprives him of his Right of Confrontation under the Sixth Amendment to the U.”
State v. Bennett, 2024-Ohio-4557, 253 N.E.3d 251. · cites it 9דLAWRENCE, 23CA4 24 {¶44} R.C. 2925.51 is the most frequently relied upon notice- and-demand statute.”
State v. Detienne, 2017-Ohio-9105. · cites it 8ד51(A), in any criminal prosecution for a violation of Chapters 2925 (“Drug Offenses”) or 3719 (“Controlled Substances”), a qualifying laboratory report3 stating that the substance that is the basis of the alleged offense has 3 Under the statute, the laboratory report must: (1)…”
State v. Pasqualone, 903 N.E.2d 270 (Ohio 2009). “Under R.C. 2925.51, Pasqualone could have demanded that the analyst testify at his trial by following the statutory procedures upon his receipt of the analyst’s report prior to trial.”
State v. Deckard, 2017-Ohio-8469, 100 N.E.3d 53. “THE TRIAL COURT DEPRIVED DECKARD OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION BY ADMITTING INTO EVIDENCE A LABORATORY REPORT UNDER NOTICE-AND-DEMAND STATUTE (R.C.2925.51)FOR THE PROSECUTION OF A CHARGE NOT WITHIN CHAPTERS 2925 OR 3719 OF THE REVISED CODE.”
State v. Maston, 2018-Ohio-1948. “51(A) provides, in relevant part: In any criminal prosecution for a violation of this chapter * * *, a laboratory report * * *, stating that the substance that is the basis of the alleged offense has been weighed and analyzed and stating the findings as to the content, weight,…”
State v. Smith, 2021-Ohio-2866. “{¶71} The most frequently relied upon notice-and-demand statute is found in R.C. 2925.51. See Detienne, supra, at ¶ 26 .”
State v. Pasqualone, 903 N.E.2d 270 (Ohio 2009). “Under R.C. 2925.51, Pasqualone could have demanded that the analyst testify at his trial by following the statutory procedures upon his receipt of the analyst’s report prior to trial.”
State v. Maston, 2018-Ohio-1948. “51(A) provides, in relevant part: In any criminal prosecution for a violation of this chapter * * *, a laboratory report * * *, stating that the substance that is the basis of the alleged offense has been weighed and analyzed and stating the findings as to the content, weight,…”
In re B.N.C., 2013-Ohio-4071. “He also maintains that R.C. 2925.51, as written and applied, deprives him of his Right of Confrontation under the Sixth Amendment to the U.”
State v. Pasqualone, 903 N.E.2d 270 (Ohio 2009). “Under R.C. 2925.51, Pasqualone could have demanded that the analyst testify at his trial by following the statutory procedures upon his receipt of the analyst’s report prior to trial.”
State v. Deckard, 2017-Ohio-8469, 100 N.E.3d 53. “THE TRIAL COURT DEPRIVED DECKARD OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION BY ADMITTING INTO EVIDENCE A LABORATORY REPORT UNDER NOTICE-AND-DEMAND STATUTE (R.C.2925.51)FOR THE PROSECUTION OF A CHARGE NOT WITHIN CHAPTERS 2925 OR 3719 OF THE REVISED CODE.”
State v. Smith, 2021-Ohio-2866. “{¶71} The most frequently relied upon notice-and-demand statute is found in R.C. 2925.51. See Detienne, supra, at ¶ 26 .”
State v. Pasqualone, 903 N.E.2d 270 (Ohio 2009). “Under R.C. 2925.51, Pasqualone could have demanded that the analyst testify at his trial by following the statutory procedures upon his receipt of the analyst’s report prior to trial.”
State v. Maston, 2018-Ohio-1948. “51(A) provides, in relevant part: In any criminal prosecution for a violation of this chapter * * *, a laboratory report * * *, stating that the substance that is the basis of the alleged offense has been weighed and analyzed and stating the findings as to the content, weight,…”
In re B.N.C., 2013-Ohio-4071. “He also maintains that R.C. 2925.51, as written and applied, deprives him of his Right of Confrontation under the Sixth Amendment to the U.”
State v. Barron, 2011-Ohio-2425. “82527, 2003-Ohio-4569 , ¶12 (“We note, however, that R.C. 2925.51 does not provide a sanction for the state’s failure to provide a sample for independent analysis.”
State v. Napier, 2020-Ohio-5457, 163 N.E.3d 1114. “25, 1988)], we extended Godby, supra, to situations such as the case at bar so as to include those suspected of committing an offense within the ambit of R.C. 2925.51 as well as those formally charged with an offense.”
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.