No indictment or information shall be quashed, set aside, or dismissed, or motion to quash be sustained, or any motion for delay of sentence for the purpose of review be granted, nor shall any conviction be set aside or reversed on account of any defect in form or substance of the indictment or information, unless the objection to such indictment or information, specifically stating the defect claimed, is made prior to the commencement of the trial, or at such time thereafter as the court permits.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1958–2025 · leading case: State v. Colon, 885 N.E.2d 917 (Ohio 2008).
State v. Colon, 885 N.E.2d 917 (Ohio 2008). · cites it 2ד12(C) and R.C. 2941.29. {¶ 57} For these reasons, it is my view that the defect in Colon’s indictment is not structural in nature, and by failing to object at a time when it could have been corrected, Colon forfeited all but plain error related to that defect.”
State v. Lester, 2009 Ohio 4225 (Ohio 2009). · cites it 4ד7(D) and 12(C) and R.C. 2941.29 meaningless. Lester did not raise the issue of a defective indictment at any time during the pendency of the proceedings before the trial court.”
State v. Schmidt, 2014 Ohio 758 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4דSimilarly, R.C. 2941.29 provides: No indictment or information shall be quashed, set aside, or dismissed, * * * nor shall any conviction be set aside or reversed on account of any defect in form or substance of the indictment or information, unless the objection to such…”
State v. Burkitt, 624 N.E.2d 210 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993). “Appellant has not raised the issue himself on appeal, and the record before us does not reflect that a timely objection was made before trial.”
State v. Schee, 2017 Ohio 212 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “Similarly, R.C. 2941.29 provides: No indictment or information shall be quashed, set aside, or dismissed,* * * nor shall any conviction be set aside or reversed on account of any defect in form or substance of the indictment or information, unless the objection to such…”
State v. Yates, 2012 Ohio 919 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “{¶59} Accordingly, the final assignment of error is overruled. {¶60} Judgment affirmed. It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant costs herein taxed.”
State v. Henson, 2019 Ohio 229 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “{¶ 14} Similarly, R.C. 2941.29 provides: No indictment or information shall be quashed, set aside, or dismissed, * * * nor shall any conviction be set aside or reversed on account of any defect in form or substance of the indictment or information, unless the objection to such…”
State v. Spradlin, 933 N.E.2d 1131 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010). “12(C)(2), however, provides that “failure * * * to charge an offense” is an exception to the general rule that failure to object waives the objection. {¶ 48} R.C. 2925.04(C) provides: “(1) Whoever commits a violation of division (A) of this section that involves any drug other…”
State v. Presler, 176 N.E.2d 308 (Ohio Ct. App. 1960). “Such omission was fatal to the validity of the indictment, and the curative provisions of Sections 2941.29 and 2941.30, Revised Code, would not operate to permit the trial court to amend the indictment in the manner in which same was here done.”
State v. Gundlach, 174 N.E.2d 267 (Ohio Ct. App. 1960). · cites it 4ד” From the observations heretofore made in this opinion, it appears that the provisions of Section 2941.29, Revised Code, if for no other reason, require this court to overrule the first claim of error.”
State v. Hayes, 2016 Ohio 330 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “R.C. 2941.29. Here, appellant did not object to the indictment prior to trial, nor did he object when he was charged with attempt to commit aggravated arson by information.”
State v. Rohn, 2020 Ohio 6918 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “Also, R.C. 2941.29 states: “No indictment * * * shall be quashed, set aside, or dismissed, nor shall any conviction be set aside or reversed on account of any defect in form or substance of the indictment, * * * unless the objection to such 6 indictment * * *, specifically…”
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.