Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2937
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2937.44 (2026)

Recognizance forms

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
January 1, 1958
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 937 - 102nd General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

Recognizances substantially in the forms following are sufficient:

RECOGNIZANCE OF THE ACCUSED

The State of Ohio, ____________________ County, ss:

Be it remembered, that on the __________ day of __________, in the year __________ E.F. and G.H. personally appeared before me, and jointly and severally acknowledged themselves to owe the state of Ohio, the sum of __________ dollars, to be levied on their goods, chattels, lands, and tenements, if default is made in the condition following, to wit:

The condition of this recognizance is such that if the above bound E.F. personally appears before the court of common pleas on the first day of the next term thereof, then and there to answer a charge of (here name the offense with which the accused is charged) and abide the judgment of the court and not depart without leave, then this recognizance shall be void; otherwise it shall be and remain in full force and virtue in law.

Taken and acknowledged before me, on the day and year above written.

A.B., Judge

RECOGNIZANCE OF WITNESS

The State of Ohio, __________ County, ss:

Be it remembered, that on the ________ day of ________, in the year ______ E.F. and G.H. personally appeared before me and jointly and severally acknowledged themselves to owe the state of Ohio, the sum of __________ dollars, to be levied on their goods, chattels, lands, and tenements, if default is made in the condition following, to wit:

The condition of this recognizance is such that if the above bound E.F. personally appears before the court of common pleas on the first day of the next term thereof then and there to give evidence on behalf of the state, touching such matters as shall then and there be required of him.., and not depart the court without leave, then this recognizance shall be void, otherwise it shall remain in full force and virtue in law.

Taken and acknowledged before me, on the day and year above written.

A.B., Judge

TO KEEP THE PEACE

The State of Ohio, _______________________ County, ss:

Be it remembered, that on the __________ day of _________, in the year of ______ E.F., and G.H. personally appeared before me, and jointly and severally acknowledged themselves to owe the state of Ohio, the sum of __________ dollars, to be levied on their goods, chattels, lands, and tenements, if default is made in the condition following, to wit:

The condition of this recognizance is such that if the above bound E.F. personally appears before the court of common pleas, on the first day of the next term thereof, then and there to answer unto a complaint of C.D. that he has reason to fear, and does fear, that the said E.F. will (here state the charge in the complaint), and abide the order of the court thereon, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behavior toward the citizens of the state generally, and especially toward the said C.D., then this recognizance shall be void; otherwise it shall be and remain in full force and virtue in law.

Taken and acknowledged before me, on the day and year above written.

A.B., Judge
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1955–2024 · leading case: Cleveland (City) v. Loviness, 125 N.E.2d 890 (Ohio Ct. App. 1955).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cleveland (City) v. Loviness, 125 N.E.2d 890 (Ohio Ct. App. 1955). · cites it 2× “” The form of this bond and its conditions are broader and more comprehensive than that provided by §2937.44 R. C. prescribing the form of recognizance bonds in the common pleas court.”
State v. Turner, 2024 Ohio 5800 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 4× “{¶14} Second, Turner claims there were multiple violations of R.C. 2937.44, including: the bond failed to identify the charged offenses; the bond did not advise him of the possibility of criminal sanctions for his nonappearance; Turner did not sign the Case No.”
State v. Green, 2008-A-0009 (9-12-2008), 2008 Ohio 4671 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008). “{ 24} Green relies on the Fusik decision, in which the court of appeals reversed a conviction for Failure to Appear, although the defendant had signed a recognizance similar to the one prescribed by R.C.2937.44. Fusik is readily distinguishable, however.”
State v. Leonard, 2012 Ohio 4742 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “Finally, both Exhibit 6 and Exhibit 7 substantially comply with the “[f]orm of recognizance” found in R.C. 2937.44. {¶14} In relevant part, the July 10, 2008 forms state the following: THE CONDITION OF THIS RECOGNIZANCE IS SUCH, THAT IF THE ABOVE BOUND PERSONALLY BE AND APPEAR…”
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.