(A) The boards of township trustees of two or more townships, by adopting resolutions by a majority vote of the board of township trustees of each township, may cause the appropriate board of elections for each township to submit to the electors of each township the question of merger under section 523.01 of the Revised Code. The question shall be voted upon at the next general election occurring not less than ninety days after the certification of the resolutions to the appropriate board of elections.
(B) In submitting to the electors of each township the question of merger, the board of elections shall submit the question in language substantially as follows:
"Shall the townships of ________________ (Names of all of the townships to be merged) be merged to create the new township of _______________ (Name of the new township)?"
(C) The merger shall take effect one hundred twenty days after certification by the board or boards of elections that the merger has been approved by the electors of each township proposed for merger.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 36
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1999–2026 · leading case: State v. Skatzes, 104 Ohio St. 3d 195 (Ohio 2004).
State v. Skatzes, 104 Ohio St. 3d 195 (Ohio 2004). · cites it 2ד” We also note that the instruction is taken from 4 Ohio Jury Instructions (2001) 573, Section 523.03(6), applicable to offenses committed before July 1, 1996.”
State v. Rohr-George, Unpublished Decision (3-21-2007), 2007 Ohio 1264 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 6ד" 4 Ohio Jury Instructions (2004) Section 523.03(6) and (7). Given these definitions, a conviction of soliciting or procuring another to commit murder requires proof that the accomplice went looking for a principal to commit the crime, or tempted, pressured, induced, motivated,…”
State v. Smith, 2017 Ohio 2708 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 4דOhio Jury Instructions, CR Section 523.03(A)(6)-(7). Furthermore, circumstantial evidence has the same probative value as direct evidence.”
State v. Herring, 762 N.E.2d 940 (Ohio 2002). “” On Counts Two (aggravated murder of Herman Naze) and Three (aggravated murder of Dennis Kotheimer), the court gave the same instruction, precluding the jury from convicting Herring of complicity in aggravated murder unless it found that he “specifically intended to aid and…”
State v. Noor, 2014 Ohio 3397 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2ד) Ohio Jury Instructions, CR Section 523.03(1)(A)(2) (Rev. Dec. 10, 2011).”
State v. Webster, 2021 Ohio 3218 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2ד) Ohio Jury Instructions, CR Section 523.03(B) (Rev. Feb. 6, 2016). Thus, Webster argues the trial court's instruction was incomplete because it did not include an instruction that Webster must share the criminal intent of the principal offender.”
State v. Thiel, 2017 Ohio 242 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 4ד) Ohio Jury Instructions, CR Section 523.03(1)(A)(2) (Rev. Feb. 6, 2016).”
State v. Mincey, 2018 Ohio 662 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 4דFormer Ohio Jury Instructions , CR Section 523.03. In 2016, OJI was amended to create two instructions, the instruction for defendants charged with the complicity statute, 2 and a new instruction for defendants charged in terms of the principal offense.”
State v. Herring, 2002 Ohio 796 (Ohio 2002). “The court also defined the terms “aid” and “abet” as follows: “Aid means to help, assist or strengthen.”
State v. Moore, Unpublished Decision (10-28-2004), 2004 Ohio 5732 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2ד" Ohio Jury Instructions, Section 523.03(6)-(7) (applicable to offenses committed on or after July 1, 1996).”
State v. Jain, 2010 Ohio 1712 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2ד2d 215 , 2004-Ohio-6391 , at ¶ 68, citing 4 Ohio Jury Instructions (2001) 573, Section 523.03(6) (this same language was incorporated into the 2009 revision of the Ohio Jury Instructions, see CR 523.”
State v. Skatzes, 104 Ohio St. 3d 195 (Ohio 2004). “” We also note that the instruction is taken from 4 Ohio Jury Instructions (2001) 573, Section 523.03(6), applicable to offenses committed before July 1, 1996.”
State v. Rohr-George, Unpublished Decision (3-21-2007), 2007 Ohio 1264 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007). “" 4 Ohio Jury Instructions (2004) Section 523.03(6) and (7). Given these definitions, a conviction of soliciting or procuring another to commit murder requires proof that the accomplice went looking for a principal to commit the crime, or tempted, pressured, induced, motivated,…”
State v. Moore, Unpublished Decision (10-28-2004), 2004 Ohio 5732 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004). “" Ohio Jury Instructions, Section 523.03(6)-(7) (applicable to offenses committed on or after July 1, 1996).”
State v. Jain, 2010 Ohio 1712 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010). “2d 215 , 2004-Ohio-6391 , at ¶ 68, citing 4 Ohio Jury Instructions (2001) 573, Section 523.03(6) (this same language was incorporated into the 2009 revision of the Ohio Jury Instructions, see CR 523.”
State v. Rohr-George, Unpublished Decision (3-21-2007), 2007 Ohio 1264 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007). “" 4 Ohio Jury Instructions (2004) Section 523.03(6) and (7). Given these definitions, a conviction of soliciting or procuring another to commit murder requires proof that the accomplice went looking for a principal to commit the crime, or tempted, pressured, induced, motivated,…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 523.03(8) — 10 cases
State v. Herring, 762 N.E.2d 940 (Ohio 2002). “” On Counts Two (aggravated murder of Herman Naze) and Three (aggravated murder of Dennis Kotheimer), the court gave the same instruction, precluding the jury from convicting Herring of complicity in aggravated murder unless it found that he “specifically intended to aid and…”
State v. Herring, 2002 Ohio 796 (Ohio 2002). “The court also defined the terms “aid” and “abet” as follows: “Aid means to help, assist or strengthen.”
State v. Rohr-George, Unpublished Decision (3-21-2007), 2007 Ohio 1264 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007). “" 4 Ohio Jury Instructions (2004) Section 523.03(6) and (7). Given these definitions, a conviction of soliciting or procuring another to commit murder requires proof that the accomplice went looking for a principal to commit the crime, or tempted, pressured, induced, motivated,…”
State v. Mincey, 2018 Ohio 662 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). “Former Ohio Jury Instructions , CR Section 523.03. In 2016, OJI was amended to create two instructions, the instruction for defendants charged with the complicity statute, 2 and a new instruction for defendants charged in terms of the principal offense.”
State v. Smith, 2017 Ohio 2708 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “Ohio Jury Instructions, CR Section 523.03(A)(6)-(7). Furthermore, circumstantial evidence has the same probative value as direct evidence.”
State v. Webster, 2021 Ohio 3218 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “) Ohio Jury Instructions, CR Section 523.03(B) (Rev. Feb. 6, 2016). Thus, Webster argues the trial court's instruction was incomplete because it did not include an instruction that Webster must share the criminal intent of the principal offender.”
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.