(A) Property may not be forfeited as an instrumentality under this chapter to the extent that the amount or value of the property is disproportionate to the severity of the offense. The state or political subdivision shall have the burden of going forward with the evidence and the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the amount or value of the property subject to forfeiture is proportionate to the severity of the offense.
(B) Contraband and any proceeds obtained from the offense are not subject to proportionality review under this section.
(C) In determining the severity of the offense for purposes of forfeiture of an instrumentality, the court shall consider all relevant factors including, but not limited to, the following:
(1) The seriousness of the offense and its impact on the community, including the duration of the activity and the harm caused or intended by the person whose property is subject to forfeiture;
(2) The extent to which the person whose property is subject to forfeiture participated in the offense;
(3) Whether the offense was completed or attempted;
(4) The extent to which the property was used in committing the offense;
(5) The sentence imposed for committing the offense that is the basis of the forfeiture, if applicable.
(D) In determining the value of the property that is an instrumentality and that is subject to forfeiture, the court shall consider relevant factors including, but not limited to, the following:
(1) The fair market value of the property;
(2) The value of the property to the person whose property is subject to forfeiture, including hardship to the person or to innocent persons if the property were forfeited. The burden shall be on the person whose property is subject to forfeiture to show the value of the property to that person and any hardship to that person.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 35
cases (15 in the last 5 years), 2009–2026 · 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 34ד02(B), and even if the vehicle was an instrumentality, forfeiture would be disproportionate to the severity of the offense, pursuant to R.C. 2981.09. {¶ 11} The state argues that Trivette waived any challenge as to the unlawful seizure of her vehicle by pleading guilty.”
State v. O'Malley, 2022-Ohio-3207, 206 N.E.3d 662. · cites it 8ד{¶ 65} This is in stark comparison to R.C. 2981.09, another forfeiture statute that does not apply here, in which the General Assembly prohibited the forfeiture of property in certain criminal cases “to the extent that the amount or value of the property is disproportionate to…”
State v. Bracy, 2018-Ohio-1977. · cites it 13דSee R.C. 2981.09(A). {¶9} “Property may not be forfeited as an instrumentality * * * to the extent that [its] amount or value * * * is disproportionate to the severity of the offense.”
State v. Howze, 2024-Ohio-5447, 257 N.E.3d 1213. · cites it 9ד{¶64} In turn, R.C. 2981.09 sets forth the standard for a proportionality determination, stating, in relevant part: Case No.”
State v. Compton, 2021-Ohio-3106, 178 N.E.3d 123. · cites it 5דIn turn, R.C. 2981.09 sets forth the standard for a proportionality determination, stating, in relevant part: (A) Property may not be forfeited as an instrumentality under this chapter to the extent that the amount or value of the property is disproportionate to the severity of…”
State v. Forney, 2013-Ohio-3458. · cites it 4ד02 of the Revised Code, 8 after a proportionality review under section 2981.09 of the Revised Code when relevant, the trier of fact shall return a verdict of forfeiture that specifically describes the extent of the property subject to forfeiture.”
State v. Bracy, 2016-Ohio-7536. · cites it 5ד00 SEIZED DURING THE EXECUTION OF A SEARCH WARRANT WAS DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE CHARGES THAT BRACY WAS FOUND GUILTY (sic) IN VIOLATION OF R.C. 2981.09. {¶14} In its third assignment of error, the State argues that the trial court erred when, following its proportionality review,…”
Dayton Police Dep't v. Byrd, 189 Ohio App. 3d 461 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2010). · cites it 4ד“Property may not be forfeited as an instrumentality under this chapter to the extent that the amount or value of the property is disproportionate to the severity of the offense.”
In re $75,000.00 U.S. Currency, 2017-Ohio-9158, 101 N.E.3d 1209. · cites it 2ד02 of the Revised Code, and, after a proportionality review under section 2981.09 of the Revised Code when relevant, the trier of fact specifically describes the extent of the property to be forfeited.”
State v. $765 in United States Currency, 908 N.E.2d 486 (Ohio Ct. App. 5th Dist. 2009). · cites it 5ד” *166 {¶ 24} R.C. 2981.09 governs value of property subject to forfeiture.”
State v. Walker, 2023-Ohio-1949, 217 N.E.3d 79. · cites it 3ד{¶58} R.C. 2981.09 provides: (A) Property may not be forfeited as an instrumentality under this chapter to the extent that the amount or value of the property is disproportionate to the severity of the offense.”
State v. Burton, 2018-Ohio-95. · cites it 2ד02 of the Revised Code, after a proportionality review under section 2981.09 of the Revised Code when relevant, the trier of fact shall return a verdict of forfeiture that specifically describes the extent of the property subject to forfeiture.”
State v. Trivette, 2011-Ohio-4297, 959 N.E.2d 1065. “02(B), and even if the vehicle was an instrumentality, forfeiture would be disproportionate to the severity of the offense, pursuant to R.C. 2981.09. {¶ 11} The state argues that Trivette waived any challenge as to the unlawful seizure of her vehicle by pleading guilty.”
State v. Forney, 2013-Ohio-3458. “02 of the Revised Code, 8 after a proportionality review under section 2981.09 of the Revised Code when relevant, the trier of fact shall return a verdict of forfeiture that specifically describes the extent of the property subject to forfeiture.”
State v. O'Malley, 2022-Ohio-3207, 206 N.E.3d 662. “{¶ 65} This is in stark comparison to R.C. 2981.09, another forfeiture statute that does not apply here, in which the General Assembly prohibited the forfeiture of property in certain criminal cases “to the extent that the amount or value of the property is disproportionate to…”
State v. Bracy, 2016-Ohio-7536. “00 SEIZED DURING THE EXECUTION OF A SEARCH WARRANT WAS DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE CHARGES THAT BRACY WAS FOUND GUILTY (sic) IN VIOLATION OF R.C. 2981.09. {¶14} In its third assignment of error, the State argues that the trial court erred when, following its proportionality review,…”
State v. $765 in United States Currency, 908 N.E.2d 486 (Ohio Ct. App. 5th Dist. 2009). “” *166 {¶ 24} R.C. 2981.09 governs value of property subject to forfeiture.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2981.09(B): 5 cases
Dayton Police Dep't v. Byrd, 189 Ohio App. 3d 461 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2010). ““Property may not be forfeited as an instrumentality under this chapter to the extent that the amount or value of the property is disproportionate to the severity of the offense.”
State v. Trivette, 2011-Ohio-4297, 959 N.E.2d 1065. “02(B), and even if the vehicle was an instrumentality, forfeiture would be disproportionate to the severity of the offense, pursuant to R.C. 2981.09. {¶ 11} The state argues that Trivette waived any challenge as to the unlawful seizure of her vehicle by pleading guilty.”
State v. O'Malley, 2022-Ohio-3207, 206 N.E.3d 662. “{¶ 65} This is in stark comparison to R.C. 2981.09, another forfeiture statute that does not apply here, in which the General Assembly prohibited the forfeiture of property in certain criminal cases “to the extent that the amount or value of the property is disproportionate to…”
State v. Howze, 2024-Ohio-5447, 257 N.E.3d 1213. “{¶64} In turn, R.C. 2981.09 sets forth the standard for a proportionality determination, stating, in relevant part: Case No.”
Dayton Police Dep't v. Byrd, 189 Ohio App. 3d 461 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2010). ““Property may not be forfeited as an instrumentality under this chapter to the extent that the amount or value of the property is disproportionate to the severity of the offense.”
State v. Bracy, 2018-Ohio-1977. “See R.C. 2981.09(A). {¶9} “Property may not be forfeited as an instrumentality * * * to the extent that [its] amount or value * * * is disproportionate to the severity of the offense.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2981.09(C)(1): 3 cases
State v. Bracy, 2018-Ohio-1977. “See R.C. 2981.09(A). {¶9} “Property may not be forfeited as an instrumentality * * * to the extent that [its] amount or value * * * is disproportionate to the severity of the offense.”
State v. Bracy, 2016-Ohio-7536. “00 SEIZED DURING THE EXECUTION OF A SEARCH WARRANT WAS DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE CHARGES THAT BRACY WAS FOUND GUILTY (sic) IN VIOLATION OF R.C. 2981.09. {¶14} In its third assignment of error, the State argues that the trial court erred when, following its proportionality review,…”
State v. Howze, 2024-Ohio-5447, 257 N.E.3d 1213. “{¶64} In turn, R.C. 2981.09 sets forth the standard for a proportionality determination, stating, in relevant part: Case No.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2981.09(C)(2): 2 cases
State v. Bracy, 2018-Ohio-1977. “See R.C. 2981.09(A). {¶9} “Property may not be forfeited as an instrumentality * * * to the extent that [its] amount or value * * * is disproportionate to the severity of the offense.”
State v. Bracy, 2018-Ohio-1977. “See R.C. 2981.09(A). {¶9} “Property may not be forfeited as an instrumentality * * * to the extent that [its] amount or value * * * is disproportionate to the severity of the offense.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2981.09(D): 1 case
State v. Trivette, 2011-Ohio-4297, 959 N.E.2d 1065. “02(B), and even if the vehicle was an instrumentality, forfeiture would be disproportionate to the severity of the offense, pursuant to R.C. 2981.09. {¶ 11} The state argues that Trivette waived any challenge as to the unlawful seizure of her vehicle by pleading guilty.”
State v. Walker, 2023-Ohio-1949, 217 N.E.3d 79. “{¶58} R.C. 2981.09 provides: (A) Property may not be forfeited as an instrumentality under this chapter to the extent that the amount or value of the property is disproportionate to the severity of the 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.