Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2941
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2941.15 (2026)

Sufficiency of indictment or information for forgery

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
October 1, 1953
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 1 - 100th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

In an indictment or information for falsely making, altering, forging, printing, photographing, uttering, disposing of, or putting off an instrument, it is sufficient to set forth the purport and value thereof. Where the instrument is a promise to pay money conditionally, it is not necessary to allege that the condition has been performed.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2017–2020 · leading case: State v. Brentlinger, 2017-Ohio-2588, 90 N.E.3d 200.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Brentlinger, 2017-Ohio-2588, 90 N.E.3d 200. “Under R.C. 2941.15(B), multiple convictions are permitted for offenses of a similar kind if we answer affirmatively to just one of the following three questions: (1) Were the offenses dissimilar in import or significance? (2) Were they committed separate? And (3) Were they…”
State v. Parks, 2020-Ohio-145. “15(B), multiple convictions are permitted for offenses of a similar kind if we answer affirmatively to just one of the following three questions: (1) Were the offenses dissimilar in import or significance? (2) Were they committed separate? And (3) Were they committed with a…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2941.15(B): 2 cases
State v. Brentlinger, 2017-Ohio-2588, 90 N.E.3d 200. “Under R.C. 2941.15(B), multiple convictions are permitted for offenses of a similar kind if we answer affirmatively to just one of the following three questions: (1) Were the offenses dissimilar in import or significance? (2) Were they committed separate? And (3) Were they…”
State v. Parks, 2020-Ohio-145. “15(B), multiple convictions are permitted for offenses of a similar kind if we answer affirmatively to just one of the following three questions: (1) Were the offenses dissimilar in import or significance? (2) Were they committed separate? And (3) Were they committed with a…”
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.