Upon written request of the defendant made not later than five days prior to the date set for trial, or upon order of the court, the prosecuting attorney shall furnish a bill of particulars setting up specifically the nature of the offense charged and the conduct of the defendant which is alleged to constitute the offense.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 53
cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1954–2026 · leading case: State v. Haynes, 2022 Ohio 4473 (Ohio 2022).
State v. Haynes, 2022 Ohio 4473 (Ohio 2022). · cites it 8ד7(E)— R.C. 2941.07—Upon written request by defendant, prosecuting attorney must provide defendant with bill of particulars setting forth specifically the nature of the offense charged and of the conduct of defendant alleged to constitute the offense.”
State v. Jamison, 2016 Ohio 5122 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 11ד” See also R.C. 2941.07. {¶6} The State argues that, despite Mr.”
United States v. Rodney Southers, 866 F.3d 364 (6th Cir. 2017). “” Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2941.07 . -10- No. 15-6395, United States v.”
State v. Sellards, 478 N.E.2d 781 (Ohio 1985). “An accused is not foreclosed from securing specificity of detail, however, for R.C. 2941.07 provides that upon a request for a bill of particulars, “* * * the prosecuting attorney shall furnish a bill of particulars setting up specifically the nature of the offense charged and…”
State v. Brown, 630 N.E.2d 397 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2דR.C. 2941.07, bill of particulars, enacted January 1, 1974, contains substantively the same language as Crim.”
State v. Chaffin, 282 N.E.2d 46 (Ohio 1972). · cites it 2דHowever, where they are not, the prosecuting attorney is required on request to ‘furnish a bill of particulars setting up specifically the nature of the offense charged.”
State v. Brown, 651 N.E.2d 470 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2דIt is in the implementation of the bill of particulars, under R.C. 2941.07 and Crim.R. 7, that the specificity of the indictment can be expanded.”
State v. Price, 2016 Ohio 4670 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 6ד{¶27} Nevertheless, I believe that it is necessary to address the parties’ contentions on the first assignment of error because they reflect the continued disregard by some trial courts and prosecutors of the plain and unambiguous language of R.C. 2941.07 and Crim.R. 7(E). R.C.…”
State v. Gibson, 2019 Ohio 1022 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “, citing R.C. 2941.07. Additionally, “the prosecution is entitled to offer differing theories as to what actually transpired in the commission of an offense.”
State v. Ketchum, 2021 Ohio 1583 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “Nevertheless, R.C. 2941.07 permits a defendant to seek more specificity by requesting a bill of particulars that requires the state to set out “specifically the nature of the offense charged and the conduct of the defendant which is alleged to constitute the offense.”
State v. Ensman, 603 N.E.2d 303 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991). “) As previously stated, the additional terms contained in the bill of particulars regarding appellant’s alleged complicity in no way changed the name or identity of the crime charged in the indictment by virtue of R.”
City of Toledo v. Kohlhofer, 122 N.E.2d 20 (Ohio Ct. App. 1954). · cites it 2דSection 2941.07, Revised Code (Section 13437-6, General Code).”
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.