Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2937.23 (2026)

Bail amount

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(A)(1) In a case involving a felony or a violation of section 2903.11, 2903.12, or 2903.13 of the Revised Code when the victim of the offense is a peace officer, the judge or magistrate shall fix the amount of bail.

(2) In a case involving a misdemeanor or a violation of a municipal ordinance and not involving a felony or a violation of section 2903.11, 2903.12, or 2903.13 of the Revised Code when the victim of the offense is a peace officer, the judge, magistrate, or clerk of the court may fix the amount of bail and may do so in accordance with a schedule previously fixed by the judge or magistrate. If the judge, magistrate, or clerk of the court is not readily available, the sheriff, deputy sheriff, marshal, deputy marshal, police officer, or jailer having custody of the person charged may fix the amount of bail in accordance with a schedule previously fixed by the judge or magistrate and shall take the bail only in the county courthouse, the municipal or township building, or the county or municipal jail.

(3) In all cases, the bail shall be fixed with consideration of the seriousness of the offense charged, the previous criminal record of the defendant, and the probability of the defendant appearing at the trial of the case.

(B) In any case involving an alleged violation of section 2903.211 of the Revised Code or of a municipal ordinance that is substantially similar to that section, the court shall determine whether it will order an evaluation of the mental condition of the defendant pursuant to section 2919.271 of the Revised Code and, if it decides to so order, shall issue the order requiring the evaluation before it sets bail for the person charged with the violation. In any case involving an alleged violation of section 2919.27 of the Revised Code or of a municipal ordinance that is substantially similar to that section and in which the court finds that either of the following criteria applies, the court shall determine whether it will order an evaluation of the mental condition of the defendant pursuant to section 2919.271 of the Revised Code and, if it decides to so order, shall issue the order requiring that evaluation before it sets bail for the person charged with the violation:

(1) Regarding an alleged violation of a protection order issued or consent agreement approved pursuant to section 2919.26 or 3113.31 of the Revised Code, that the violation allegedly involves conduct by the defendant that caused physical harm to the person or property of a family or household member covered by the order or agreement or conduct by that defendant that caused a family or household member to believe that the defendant would cause physical harm to that member or that member's property;

(2) Regarding an alleged violation of a protection order issued pursuant to section 2903.213 or 2903.214 of the Revised Code, or a protection order issued by a court of another state, as defined in section 2919.27 of the Revised Code, that the violation allegedly involves conduct by the defendant that caused physical harm to the person or property of the person covered by the order or conduct by that defendant that caused the person covered by the order to believe that the defendant would cause physical harm to that person or that person's property.

(C) As used in this section, "peace officer" has the same meaning as in section 2935.01 of the Revised Code.

The Legislative Service Commission presents the text of this section as a composite of the section as amended by multiple acts of the General Assembly. This presentation recognizes the principle stated in R.C. 1.52(B) that amendments are to be harmonized if reasonably capable of simultaneous operation.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1982–2024 · leading case: DuBose v. McGuffey (Slip Opinion), 2022-Ohio-8, 195 N.E.3d 951.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
DuBose v. McGuffey (Slip Opinion), 2022-Ohio-8, 195 N.E.3d 951. · cites it 2× “) Compare R.C. 2937.23(A)(3) (“In all cases, the bail shall be fixed with consideration of the seriousness of the offense charged, the previous criminal record of the defendant, and the probability of the defendant appearing at the trial of the case”).”
State v. Patterson, 673 N.E.2d 1001 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1996). · cites it 2× “Constitution: Ohio Criminal Rule 46; and Ohio Revised Code Section 2937.23.” In support of this assignment of error, Patterson argues that the trial court erred in setting his pretrial bond at an excessive amount.”
Mohamed v. Eckelberry (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-4585, 166 N.E.3d 1132. “14 January Term, 2020 Compare R.C. 2937.23(A)(3) (“In all cases, the bail shall be fixed with consideration of the seriousness of the offense charged, the previous criminal record of the defendant, and the probability of the defendant appearing at the trial of the case”).”
In re Gentry, 454 N.E.2d 987 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. 1982). “That in determining the amount of bail to be fixed, the standards set forth in R.C. 2937.23 and Crim. R. 46 (F) must be applied.”
State v. Sanders, 2017-Ohio-8088. “231 of the Revised Code, and render a judgment against the defendant for such costs.”
State v. Chionchio, 2013-Ohio-4296. ““Indeed, pursuant to R.C. 2937.23, the imposition of costs is mandatory * * *” absent waiver under certain circumstances.”
Johns v. Wasylyshyn, 2016-Ohio-564. “” Additionally, in determining the types, amounts, and conditions of bail, Crim.”
State v. Wilhelm, 2024-Ohio-5606. “The trial court ordered Wilhelm held without bond pending the completion of a mental evaluation pursuant to R.C. 2937.23(B). {¶3} On December 9, 2020, Wilhelm filed a motion for surety bond and mental evaluation.”
State v. Schillinger, 2018-Ohio-3966. ““Indeed, pursuant to R.C. 2937.23, the imposition of costs is mandatory * * *" absent waiver under certain circumstances.”
Savage v. Sigsworth, 2024-Ohio-5138. · cites it 3× “The latter statute applies to the imposition of “pretrial release” conditions, which is the situation presented here. For the record though, we note that the two statutes contain similar criteria.”
Walls v. Sigsworth, 2019-Ohio-333. · cites it 2× “If we find that the trial court has abused its discretion, we must reset the bond at a reasonable amount, taking into account the factors set forth in R.C. 2937.23(A)(3) and Crim.R. 46(C). Hamilton v.”
State v. S.D.D., 2023-Ohio-4040. · cites it 2× “222, R.C. 2937.23, R.C. 2937.32, and Crim.R. 46.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
Ohio Rev. Code § 2937.23(A)(3): 4 cases
DuBose v. McGuffey (Slip Opinion), 2022-Ohio-8, 195 N.E.3d 951. “) Compare R.C. 2937.23(A)(3) (“In all cases, the bail shall be fixed with consideration of the seriousness of the offense charged, the previous criminal record of the defendant, and the probability of the defendant appearing at the trial of the case”).”
Mohamed v. Eckelberry (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-4585, 166 N.E.3d 1132. “14 January Term, 2020 Compare R.C. 2937.23(A)(3) (“In all cases, the bail shall be fixed with consideration of the seriousness of the offense charged, the previous criminal record of the defendant, and the probability of the defendant appearing at the trial of the case”).”
Johns v. Wasylyshyn, 2016-Ohio-564. “” Additionally, in determining the types, amounts, and conditions of bail, Crim.”
Walls v. Sigsworth, 2019-Ohio-333. “If we find that the trial court has abused its discretion, we must reset the bond at a reasonable amount, taking into account the factors set forth in R.C. 2937.23(A)(3) and Crim.R. 46(C). Hamilton v.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2937.23(B): 1 case
State v. Wilhelm, 2024-Ohio-5606. “The trial court ordered Wilhelm held without bond pending the completion of a mental evaluation pursuant to R.C. 2937.23(B). {¶3} On December 9, 2020, Wilhelm filed a motion for surety bond and mental evaluation.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2937.23(B)(3): 1 case
Savage v. Sigsworth, 2024-Ohio-5138. “The latter statute applies to the imposition of “pretrial release” conditions, which is the situation presented here. For the record though, we note that the two statutes contain similar criteria.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2937.23(D)(1): 1 case
Lakewood v. Calanni, 2013-Ohio-5590.
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.