No indictment or information shall be quashed, set aside, or dismissed for any of the following defects:
(A) That there is a misjoinder of the parties accused;
(B) That there is a misjoinder of the offenses charged in the indictment or information, or duplicity therein;
(C) That any uncertainty exists therein.
If the court is of the opinion that either defect referred to in division (A) or (B) of this section exists in any indictment or information, it may sever such indictment or information into separate indictments or informations or into separate counts.
If the court is of the opinion that the defect referred to in division (C) of this section exists in the indictment or information, it may order the indictment or information amended to cure such defect, provided no change is made in the name or identity of the crime charged.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1964–2025 · leading case: State v. Blankenburg, 966 N.E.2d 958 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. 2012).
State v. Blankenburg, 966 N.E.2d 958 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. 2012). · cites it 2ד” {¶ 19} R.C. 2941.28 states: No indictment or information shall be quashed, set aside, or dismissed for any of the following defects: (A) That there is a misjoinder of the parties accused; (B) That there is a misjoinder of the offenses charged in the indictment or information,…”
State v. Miller, 2018-Ohio-3481, 118 N.E.3d 1129. · cites it 2דDOES R.C. 2941.28 PRECLUDE A TRIAL COURT FROM DISMISSING "DUPLICITOUS" PORTIONS OF AN INDICTMENT?" I.”
Cleveland v. Bates, 2023-Ohio-3627. · cites it 2דThat conclusion is largely based on R.C. 2941.28(B), which provides that an indictment of information may not be dismissed based on duplicity in the indictment or information.”
State v. Vitale, 645 N.E.2d 1277 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1994). “28 provides that “[no] indictment or information shall be quashed, set aside, or dismissed for any of the following defects: * * * (B) That there is a misjoinder of the offenses charged in the indictment or information, or duplicity therein.” To the extent that appellant argues…”
State v. Radabaugh, 2024-Ohio-5640. “); see also R.C. 2941.28 (referencing duplicity as a defect in an indictment and setting forth potential remedies).”
State v. Kolvek, 2017-Ohio-9137. “R.C. 2941.28(B). “Instead, the trial court may sever the indictment into separate indictments or separate counts.”
State v. Fisher, 2022-Ohio-1363. “Miller, 2018-Ohio-3481 at ¶ 60 ; R.C. 2941.28(B). -6- Clinton CA2021-08-026 {¶ 23} In the matter sub judice, the trial court granted the state's motion to amend the indictment during a hearing on February 16, 2021, and then continued the case.”
State v. Sanders, 2025-Ohio-411. “{¶48} R.C. 2941.28 Misjoinder of parties or offenses, states, No indictment or information shall be quashed, set aside, or dismissed for any of the following defects: (A) That there is a misjoinder of the parties accused; (B) That there is a misjoinder of the offenses charged in…”
Clinger v. Maxwell, 175 Ohio St. 540 (1964). · cites it 2דThe court determined there was a misjoinder of parties and, under the provisions of Section 2941.28, Revised' Code, ordered the joint indictment to be severed into separate indictments, and a new number was given to petitioner’s indictment.”
Daniel v. Maxwell, 176 Ohio St. 207 (1964). · cites it 2דSection 2941.28, Revised Code. Petitioner remanded to custody.”
State v. Wells, 8 Ohio App. Unrep. 413 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1990). “R.C. 2941.28 provides in relevant part as follows: "No indictment or information shall be quashed, set aside, or dismissed for any of the following defects: "(A) That there is a misjoinder of the parties accused; "(B) That there is a misjoinder of the offenses charged in the…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2941.28(B): 5 cases
State v. Blankenburg, 966 N.E.2d 958 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. 2012). “” {¶ 19} R.C. 2941.28 states: No indictment or information shall be quashed, set aside, or dismissed for any of the following defects: (A) That there is a misjoinder of the parties accused; (B) That there is a misjoinder of the offenses charged in the indictment or information,…”
Cleveland v. Bates, 2023-Ohio-3627. “That conclusion is largely based on R.C. 2941.28(B), which provides that an indictment of information may not be dismissed based on duplicity in the indictment or information.”
State v. Miller, 2018-Ohio-3481, 118 N.E.3d 1129. “DOES R.C. 2941.28 PRECLUDE A TRIAL COURT FROM DISMISSING "DUPLICITOUS" PORTIONS OF AN INDICTMENT?" I.”
State v. Kolvek, 2017-Ohio-9137. “R.C. 2941.28(B). “Instead, the trial court may sever the indictment into separate indictments or separate counts.”
State v. Fisher, 2022-Ohio-1363. “Miller, 2018-Ohio-3481 at ¶ 60 ; R.C. 2941.28(B). -6- Clinton CA2021-08-026 {¶ 23} In the matter sub judice, the trial court granted the state's motion to amend the indictment during a hearing on February 16, 2021, and then continued the case.”
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.