In any case in which a sexually violent predator specification is included in the indictment, count in the indictment, or information charging a violent sex offense or a designated homicide, assault, or kidnapping offense and in which the defendant is tried by a jury, the defendant may elect to have the court instead of the jury determine the sexually violent predator specification.
If the defendant does not elect to have the court determine the sexually violent predator specification, the defendant shall be tried before the jury on the charge of the offense and, if the offense is a designated homicide, assault, or kidnapping offense, on the sexual motivation specification that is included in the indictment, count in the indictment, or information charging the offense. Following a verdict of guilty on the charge of the offense and, if the offense is a designated homicide, assault, or kidnapping offense, on the related sexual motivation specification, the defendant shall be tried before the jury on the sexually violent predator specification.
If the defendant elects to have the court determine the sexually violent predator specification, the defendant shall be tried before the jury on the charge of the offense and, if the offense is a designated homicide, assault, or kidnapping offense, on the sexual motivation specification that is included in the indictment, count in the indictment, or information charging the offense. Following a verdict of guilty on the charge of the offense and, if the offense if a designated homicide, assault, or kidnapping offense, on the related sexual motivation specification, the court shall conduct a proceeding at which it shall determine the sexually violent predator specification.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2001–2026 · leading case: State v. Pyle, 2018 Ohio 3160 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
State v. Pyle, 2018 Ohio 3160 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 3דFollowing the jury trial where the jury found Pyle guilty of rape and gross sexual imposition, the trial court conducted the proceeding to determine the specification.”
State v. Jones, 2001 Ohio 1341 (Ohio 2001). “R.C. 2971.02. Because a defendant must be convicted of a sexually violent offense before he or she can be found guilty of a sexually violent predator specification, R.”
State v. Kelley, 2024 Ohio 157 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2ד” R.C. 2971.02(H)(2)(c) and (f). Further, this court has held that “‘R.”
State v. Smith, 104 Ohio St. 3d 106 (Ohio 2004). “See R.C. 2971.02. Thus, the state argues, “at the time the finder of fact considers the specification, the first element will already have occurred” and accordingly, the underlying conviction can be used to prove the specification alleged in the indictment because the conviction…”
State v. Cartwright, 2013 Ohio 2156 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2ד80615, 2002-Ohio-4423 , ¶ 54 (finding that, while none of the specific factors listed under R.C. 2971.02(H)(2)(a)-(e) pertained to Williams, the catch-all provision in R.”
State v. Maranger, 2018 Ohio 1425 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). “1 R.C. 2971.02 states that "[i]n any case in which a sexually violent predator specification is included in the indictment, count in the indictment, or information charging a violent sex offense or a designated homicide, assault, or kidnapping offense and in which the defendant…”
State v. Horn, 2018 Ohio 779 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). “{¶ 44} A "sexually violent predator" is defined as "a person who, on or after January 1, 1997, commits a sexually violent offense and is likely to engage in the future in one or more sexually violent offenses.”
State v. Wasilewski, 2020 Ohio 5141 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “02(A)(1)(b) and (B) and R.C. 2971.02(B)(1) (count 1), one count of gross 2 sexual imposition, a felony of the third degree, in violation of R.”
State v. Richmond, 2011 Ohio 6450 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). “” However, R.C. 2971.02(A) states that, “In any case in which a sexually violent predator specification is included in the indictment * * * charging a violent sex offense * * * and in which the defendant is tried by a jury, the defendant may elect to have the court instead of…”
State v. Wooten, 2014 Ohio 3980 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 3דSee R.C. 2971.02. See also State v. Harrod, 1st Dist.”
State v. Turpin, 2017 Ohio 4200 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “See R.C. 2971.02. Therefore, we begin with Turpin’s argument that his convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence.”
State v. Johnson, 2024 Ohio 3108 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). “Johnson argues the trial court erred in finding him to be a sexually violent predator because he only had one prior conviction for a sexual offense pursuant to R.C. 2971.02(H)(2)(a). He further argues the evidence did not support the statutory factors that he would likely…”
State v. Richmond, 2011 Ohio 6450 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). “” However, R.C. 2971.02(A) states that, “In any case in which a sexually violent predator specification is included in the indictment * * * charging a violent sex offense * * * and in which the defendant is tried by a jury, the defendant may elect to have the court instead of…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2971.02(B)(1) — 1 case
State v. Wasilewski, 2020 Ohio 5141 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “02(A)(1)(b) and (B) and R.C. 2971.02(B)(1) (count 1), one count of gross 2 sexual imposition, a felony of the third degree, in violation of R.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2971.02(H)(2) — 2 cases
State v. Pyle, 2018 Ohio 3160 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). “Following the jury trial where the jury found Pyle guilty of rape and gross sexual imposition, the trial court conducted the proceeding to determine the specification.”
State v. Pyle, 2018 Ohio 3160 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). “Following the jury trial where the jury found Pyle guilty of rape and gross sexual imposition, the trial court conducted the proceeding to determine the specification.”
State v. Cartwright, 2013 Ohio 2156 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “80615, 2002-Ohio-4423 , ¶ 54 (finding that, while none of the specific factors listed under R.C. 2971.02(H)(2)(a)-(e) pertained to Williams, the catch-all provision in R.”
State v. Johnson, 2024 Ohio 3108 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). “Johnson argues the trial court erred in finding him to be a sexually violent predator because he only had one prior conviction for a sexual offense pursuant to R.C. 2971.02(H)(2)(a). He further argues the evidence did not support the statutory factors that he would likely…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2971.02(H)(2)(c) — 1 case
State v. Kelley, 2024 Ohio 157 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). “” R.C. 2971.02(H)(2)(c) and (f). Further, this court has held that “‘R.”
State v. Cartwright, 2013 Ohio 2156 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “80615, 2002-Ohio-4423 , ¶ 54 (finding that, while none of the specific factors listed under R.C. 2971.02(H)(2)(a)-(e) pertained to Williams, the catch-all provision in R.”
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.