Go Syfert

Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 959.21 (2026)

Sexual conduct with an animal

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Effective:

March 31, 2021

Latest Legislation:

House Bill 24 - 133rd General Assembly

PDF:

Download Authenticated PDF

(A) As used in this section:

(1) "Animal" means a nonhuman mammal, bird, reptile, or amphibian, either dead or alive.

(2) "Offense" means a violation of this section or an attempt, in violation of section 2923.02 of the Revised Code, to violate this section.

(3) "Officer" has the same meaning as in section 959.132 of the Revised Code.

(4) "Sexual conduct" means either of the following committed for the purpose of sexual gratification:

(a) Any act done between a person and animal that involves contact of the penis of one and the vulva of the other, the penis of one and the penis of the other, the penis of one and the anus of the other, the mouth of one and the penis of the other, the mouth of one and the anus of the other, the vulva of one and the vulva of the other, the mouth of one and the vulva of the other, any other contact between a reproductive organ of one and a reproductive organ of the other, or any other insertion of a reproductive organ of one into an orifice of the other;

(b) Without a bona fide veterinary or animal husbandry purpose to do so, the insertion, however slight, of any part of a person's body or any instrument, apparatus, or other object into the vaginal, anal, or reproductive opening of an animal.

(B) No person shall knowingly engage in sexual conduct with an animal or knowingly possess, sell, or purchase an animal with the intent that it be subjected to sexual conduct.

(C) No person shall knowingly organize, promote, aid, or abet in the conduct of an act involving any sexual conduct with an animal.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2019–2026 · leading case: City of Cleveland v. Turner, 2019 Ohio 1241 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

City of Cleveland v. Turner, 2019 Ohio 1241 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 18× “{¶22} In this apparent case of first impression, there is no Ohio case law that has analyzed the corpus delicti issue in the context of R.C. 959.21. We are guided, however, by an Indiana Supreme Court case, Shinnock v.”

State v. Wolfe, 2022 Ohio 2921 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “13 or section 959.21 of the Revised Code is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree.”

State v. Addicott, 2025 Ohio 1785 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “322; and five counts of Sexual Conduct with an Animal, second-degree misdemeanors in violation of R.C. 959.21 and 959.99. {¶2} Appellant has raised one assignment of error arguing that the trial court repeatedly permitted the introduction of hearsay evidence, which violated his…”

State v. Dilts, 2026 Ohio 1667 (Ohio Ct. App. 2026). “25(A), and one count of Sexual Conduct with an Animal, a violation of R.C. 959.21(B). On August 12, 2024, after discovery was fully exchanged between the State and defense counsel, Appellant entered a plea of “no contest” to two counts of domestic violence; the State agreed to…”

— Ohio Rev. Code § 959.21(A)(4)(a) — 1 case

City of Cleveland v. Turner, 2019 Ohio 1241 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “{¶22} In this apparent case of first impression, there is no Ohio case law that has analyzed the corpus delicti issue in the context of R.C. 959.21. We are guided, however, by an Indiana Supreme Court case, Shinnock v.”

— Ohio Rev. Code § 959.21(B) — 2 cases

City of Cleveland v. Turner, 2019 Ohio 1241 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “{¶22} In this apparent case of first impression, there is no Ohio case law that has analyzed the corpus delicti issue in the context of R.C. 959.21. We are guided, however, by an Indiana Supreme Court case, Shinnock v.”

State v. Dilts, 2026 Ohio 1667 (Ohio Ct. App. 2026). “25(A), and one count of Sexual Conduct with an Animal, a violation of R.C. 959.21(B). On August 12, 2024, after discovery was fully exchanged between the State and defense counsel, Appellant entered a plea of “no contest” to two counts of domestic violence; the State agreed to…”

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.