(A)(1) The following property is subject to forfeiture to the state or a political subdivision under either the criminal or delinquency process in section 2981.04 of the Revised Code or the civil process in section 2981.05 of the Revised Code:
(a) Contraband involved in an offense;
(b) Proceeds derived from or acquired through the commission of an offense;
(c) An instrumentality that is used in or intended to be used in the commission or facilitation of any of the following offenses when the use or intended use, consistent with division (B) of this section, is sufficient to warrant forfeiture under this chapter:
(i) A felony;
(ii) A misdemeanor, when forfeiture is specifically authorized by a section of the Revised Code or by a municipal ordinance that creates the offense or sets forth its penalties;
(iii) An attempt to commit, complicity in committing, or a conspiracy to commit an offense of the type described in divisions (A)(3)(a) and (b) of this section.
(2) In determining whether an alleged instrumentality was used in or was intended to be used in the commission or facilitation of an offense or an attempt, complicity, or conspiracy to commit an offense in a manner sufficient to warrant its forfeiture, the trier of fact shall consider the following factors the trier of fact determines are relevant:
(a) Whether the offense could not have been committed or attempted but for the presence of the instrumentality;
(b) Whether the primary purpose in using the instrumentality was to commit or attempt to commit the offense;
(c) The extent to which the instrumentality furthered the commission of, or attempt to commit, the offense.
(B) The property described in division (H)(4) of section 2917.211 of the Revised Code is subject to forfeiture under the criminal or delinquency process in section 2981.04 of the Revised Code, if the forfeiture is ordered by the court imposing sentence or an order of disposition.
(C) This chapter does not apply to or limit forfeitures under Title XLV of the Revised Code, including forfeitures relating to section 2903.06 or 2903.08 of the Revised Code.
Last updated July 21, 2025 at 11:52 AM
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 157
cases (65 in the last 5 years), 2007–2026 · leading case: State v. Trivette, 2011-Ohio-4297, 959 N.E.2d 1065.
State v. Trivette, 2011-Ohio-4297, 959 N.E.2d 1065. · cites it 37דIt has argued both that the Explorer was subject to forfeiture as an instrumentality used in the commission or facilitation of an offense in a manner sufficient to warrant its forfeiture under R.C. 2981.02 and that its value was not disproportionate to the seriousness of…”
State v. Brimacombe, 960 N.E.2d 1042 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. 2011). · cites it 9דThe state, in response, quotes only a portion of R.C. 2981.02, defining “instrumentality,” and then summarily concludes that “the weapons should be destroyed pursuant to a legal order made by the trial court.”
State v. Harris, 2012-Ohio-1908, 972 N.E.2d 509. · cites it 6ד04(B) requires that the state or political subdivision prove only by a preponderance of the evidence that property is subject to forfeiture under R.C. 2981.02. To obtain a conviction, in contrast, the state must prove all the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Dayton Police Dep't v. Byrd, 189 Ohio App. 3d 461 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2010). · cites it 10דIn this case, forfeiture of Byrd’s cash could have been sought either as “proceeds” under R.C. 2981.02(A)(2) or as an “instrumentality” pursuant to R.”
State v. Glanton, 2020-Ohio-834. · cites it 5ד{¶ 3} On appeal, Glanton argues that the forfeiture provision set forth in R.C. 2981.02 (“Property subject to forfeiture”) is unconstitutional and that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss.”
State v. Woods, 2013-Ohio-1136. · cites it 7דThe indictment contained a forfeiture specification titled in the caption as “Monies & Motor Vehicle, O.R.C. 2981.02 and 2941.1417” (emphasis added) and stated the following: The Grand Jurors further find and specify that the said Defendant owned or possessed property, to-wit: a…”
State v. Compton, 2021-Ohio-3106, 178 N.E.3d 123. · cites it 8דCompton contends that the plea agreement did not diminish the state’s requirement to first prove by clear and convincing evidence that the monies in question were subject to forfeiture under R.C. 2981.02 and 2981.04. In her second assignment of error, Compton argues the trial…”
In re $75,000.00 U.S. Currency, 2017-Ohio-9158, 101 N.E.3d 1209. · cites it 4ד{¶ 52} "Proceeds derived from or acquired through the commission of an offense" and instrumentalities "used in or intended to be used in the commission or facilitation of" a felony are subject to forfeiture.”
State v. Armstead, 2021-Ohio-4000. · cites it 4ד2907.08(E)(1)(3). R.C. 2907.08 does not specifically authorize forfeiture for violations under that section.”
State v. Forney, 2013-Ohio-3458. · cites it 5דIf the state or political subdivision proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the property is in whole or part subject to forfeiture under section 2981.02 of the Revised Code, 8 after a proportionality review under section 2981.”
State v. West, 2013-Ohio-96. · cites it 4ד{¶33} “Contraband” is defined as property that is illegal for a person to acquire or possess under a statute, ordinance, or rule, or that a trier of fact determines to be illegal to possess by reason of the property’s involvement in an offense.”
Erie Cty. Sheriff's Off. v. Lacy, 2015-Ohio-72. · cites it 7ד” R.C. 2981.02 permits forfeiture of property that is: (1) Contraband involved in an offense; (2) Proceeds derived from or acquired through the commission of an offense; (3) An instrumentality that is used in or intended to be used in the commission or facilitation of any of the…”
State v. Glanton, 2020-Ohio-834. “{¶ 3} On appeal, Glanton argues that the forfeiture provision set forth in R.C. 2981.02 (“Property subject to forfeiture”) is unconstitutional and that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss.”
State v. Trivette, 2011-Ohio-4297, 959 N.E.2d 1065. “It has argued both that the Explorer was subject to forfeiture as an instrumentality used in the commission or facilitation of an offense in a manner sufficient to warrant its forfeiture under R.C. 2981.02 and that its value was not disproportionate to the seriousness of…”
State v. Armstead, 2021-Ohio-4000. “2907.08(E)(1)(3). R.C. 2907.08 does not specifically authorize forfeiture for violations under that section.”
State v. Compton, 2021-Ohio-3106, 178 N.E.3d 123. “Compton contends that the plea agreement did not diminish the state’s requirement to first prove by clear and convincing evidence that the monies in question were subject to forfeiture under R.C. 2981.02 and 2981.04. In her second assignment of error, Compton argues the trial…”
State v. Forney, 2013-Ohio-3458. “If the state or political subdivision proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the property is in whole or part subject to forfeiture under section 2981.02 of the Revised Code, 8 after a proportionality review under section 2981.”
State v. Compton, 2021-Ohio-3106, 178 N.E.3d 123. “Compton contends that the plea agreement did not diminish the state’s requirement to first prove by clear and convincing evidence that the monies in question were subject to forfeiture under R.C. 2981.02 and 2981.04. In her second assignment of error, Compton argues the trial…”
Dayton Police Dep't v. Byrd, 189 Ohio App. 3d 461 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2010). “In this case, forfeiture of Byrd’s cash could have been sought either as “proceeds” under R.C. 2981.02(A)(2) or as an “instrumentality” pursuant to R.”
Dayton Police Dep't v. Byrd, 189 Ohio App. 3d 461 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2010). “In this case, forfeiture of Byrd’s cash could have been sought either as “proceeds” under R.C. 2981.02(A)(2) or as an “instrumentality” pursuant to R.”
State v. West, 2013-Ohio-96. “{¶33} “Contraband” is defined as property that is illegal for a person to acquire or possess under a statute, ordinance, or rule, or that a trier of fact determines to be illegal to possess by reason of the property’s involvement in an offense.”
Dayton Police Dep't v. Byrd, 189 Ohio App. 3d 461 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2010). “In this case, forfeiture of Byrd’s cash could have been sought either as “proceeds” under R.C. 2981.02(A)(2) or as an “instrumentality” pursuant to R.”
State v. Trivette, 2011-Ohio-4297, 959 N.E.2d 1065. “It has argued both that the Explorer was subject to forfeiture as an instrumentality used in the commission or facilitation of an offense in a manner sufficient to warrant its forfeiture under R.C. 2981.02 and that its value was not disproportionate to the seriousness of…”
State v. Trivette, 2011-Ohio-4297, 959 N.E.2d 1065. “It has argued both that the Explorer was subject to forfeiture as an instrumentality used in the commission or facilitation of an offense in a manner sufficient to warrant its forfeiture under R.C. 2981.02 and that its value was not disproportionate to the seriousness of…”
Dayton Police Dep't v. Byrd, 189 Ohio App. 3d 461 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2010). “In this case, forfeiture of Byrd’s cash could have been sought either as “proceeds” under R.C. 2981.02(A)(2) or as an “instrumentality” pursuant to R.”
State v. Trivette, 2011-Ohio-4297, 959 N.E.2d 1065. “It has argued both that the Explorer was subject to forfeiture as an instrumentality used in the commission or facilitation of an offense in a manner sufficient to warrant its forfeiture under R.C. 2981.02 and that its value was not disproportionate to the seriousness of…”
State v. Brimacombe, 960 N.E.2d 1042 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. 2011). “The state, in response, quotes only a portion of R.C. 2981.02, defining “instrumentality,” and then summarily concludes that “the weapons should be destroyed pursuant to a legal order made by the trial court.”
State v. West, 2013-Ohio-96. “{¶33} “Contraband” is defined as property that is illegal for a person to acquire or possess under a statute, ordinance, or rule, or that a trier of fact determines to be illegal to possess by reason of the property’s involvement in an offense.”
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.