(A) Whoever violates section 959.18 or 959.19 of the Revised Code is guilty of a minor misdemeanor.
(B) Except as otherwise provided in this division, whoever violates section 959.02 of the Revised Code is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree. If the value of the animal killed or the injury done amounts to three hundred dollars or more, whoever violates section 959.02 of the Revised Code is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree.
(C) Whoever violates section 959.03, 959.06, division (C) of section 959.09, 959.12, or 959.17 or division (A) of section 959.15 of the Revised Code is guilty of a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.
(D) Whoever violates division (A) of section 959.13 or section 959.21 of the Revised Code is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree. In addition, the court may order the offender to forfeit the animal or livestock and may provide for its disposition, including, but not limited to, the sale of the animal or livestock. If an animal or livestock is forfeited and sold pursuant to this division, the proceeds from the sale first shall be applied to pay the expenses incurred with regard to the care of the animal from the time it was taken from the custody of the former owner. The balance of the proceeds from the sale, if any, shall be paid to the former owner of the animal.
(E)(1) Whoever violates division (B) or (E) of section 959.131 of the Revised Code is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree on a first offense and a felony of the fifth degree on each subsequent offense.
(2) Whoever violates division (C) of section 959.131 of the Revised Code is guilty of a felony of the fifth degree.
(3) Whoever violates section 959.01 of the Revised Code or division (D) of section 959.131 of the Revised Code is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree on a first offense and a misdemeanor of the first degree on each subsequent offense.
(4) Whoever violates division (F) of section 959.131 of the Revised Code is guilty of a felony of the fifth degree.
(5) Whoever violates division (G) of section 959.131 of the Revised Code is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree.
(6)(a) A court may order a person who is convicted of or pleads guilty to a violation of section 959.131 of the Revised Code to forfeit to an impounding agency, as defined in section 959.132 of the Revised Code, any or all of the companion animals in that person's ownership or care. The court also may prohibit or place limitations on the person's ability to own or care for any companion animals for a specified or indefinite period of time.
(b) A court may order a person who is convicted of or pleads guilty to a violation of division (A) of section 959.13 or section 959.131 of the Revised Code to reimburse an impounding agency for the reasonable and necessary costs incurred by the agency for the care of an animal or livestock that the agency impounded as a result of the investigation or prosecution of the violation, provided that the costs were not otherwise paid under section 959.132 of the Revised Code.
(7) If a court has reason to believe that a person who is convicted of or pleads guilty to a violation of section 959.131 or 959.21 of the Revised Code has a mental or emotional disorder that contributed to the violation, the court may impose as a community control sanction or as a condition of probation a requirement that the offender undergo psychological evaluation or counseling. The court shall order the offender to pay the costs of the evaluation or counseling.
(F) Whoever violates section 959.14 of the Revised Code is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree on a first offense and a misdemeanor of the first degree on each subsequent offense.
(G) Whoever violates section 959.05 or 959.20 of the Revised Code is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree.
(H) Whoever violates section 959.16 of the Revised Code is guilty of a felony of the fourth degree for a first offense and a felony of the third degree on each subsequent offense.
(I) Whoever violates division (B) or (C) of section 959.15 of the Revised Code is guilty of a felony and shall be fined not more than ten thousand dollars.
The Legislative Service Commission presents the text of this section as a composite of the section as amended by multiple acts of the General Assembly. This presentation recognizes the principle stated in R.C. 1.52(B) that amendments are to be harmonized if reasonably capable of simultaneous operation.
Last updated February 9, 2023 at 8:56 AM
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
23
cases (
8 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case:
State v. McCullough, 2018 Ohio 4499 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
State v. McCullough, 2018 Ohio 4499 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 27× “12(C), contending that he was improperly charged with a felony of the fifth degree while, pursuant to R.C. 959.99, the penalty for a first time violation of R.”
State v. Sheets, 677 N.E.2d 818 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 5× “In addition, the court may order the offender to forfeit the animal or livestock and may provide for its disposition including, but not limited to, the sale of the animal or livestock.”
State v. Bechtel, 2020 Ohio 4889 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 6× “{¶11} The State counters that the community control sanction in question is specifically provided for by R.C. 959.99(E)(6)(a) which provides: With respect to “a person who is convicted of or pleads guilty to a violation of section 959.”
State v. Barker, 714 N.E.2d 447 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 6× “She argues that R.C. 959.99(D) “provides for the forfeiture of only ‘the animal or livestock’ that was treated cruelly in violation of R.”
State v. Thames, 2022 Ohio 1715 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 4× “” {¶47} R.C. 959.99(E)(6)(a) provides: With respect to “a person who is convicted of or pleads guilty to a violation of section 959.”
State v. Walker, 841 N.E.2d 376 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 5× “13) has a corresponding penalty statute (R.C. 959.99) that allows forfeiture of animals or livestock that are treated cruelly.”
State v. Glowney & Glowney, 2019 Ohio 3390 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “See R.C. 959.99(E)(2). However, under the prior version, R.”
State v. Taylor, 2016 Ohio 7953 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
“R.C. 959.99(H). {¶24} Captain Clark Westfall testified that he helped organize a raid at a home in Akron, where the police suspected that the owner was conducting a dogfighting operation.”
State v. Wolfe, 2022 Ohio 2921 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 5× “{¶3} We overrule Wolfe’s arguments and conclude that the trial court had the authority to order Echo’s forfeiture pursuant to R.C. 959.99(D). Echo is the subject of Wolfe’s cruelty and the property forfeiture provisions in R.”
State v. Leslie, 2011 Ohio 2727 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011).
“Moreover, R.C. 959.99(D) provides that when a person violates R.”
State v. Wear, 472 N.E.2d 778 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984).
“15, the Ohio animal fights statute, reads in its entirety as follows: “No person shall knowingly engage in or be employed at cockfighting, bear-baiting, or pitting an animal against another; no person shall receive money for the admission of another to a place kept for such…”
State v. Caroline's Kids Pet Rescue, 2023 Ohio 761 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 3× “Reimbursement is permitted in cruelty to companion animal cases pursuant to R.C. 959.99(E)(6)(b), which provides: A court may order a person who is convicted of or pleads guilty to a violation of division (A) of section 959.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 959.99(A) — 1 case
State v. McCullough, 2018 Ohio 4499 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
“12(C), contending that he was improperly charged with a felony of the fifth degree while, pursuant to R.C. 959.99, the penalty for a first time violation of R.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 959.99(C) — 1 case
State v. Wear, 472 N.E.2d 778 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984).
“15, the Ohio animal fights statute, reads in its entirety as follows: “No person shall knowingly engage in or be employed at cockfighting, bear-baiting, or pitting an animal against another; no person shall receive money for the admission of another to a place kept for such…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 959.99(D) — 6 cases
State v. Sheets, 677 N.E.2d 818 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996).
“In addition, the court may order the offender to forfeit the animal or livestock and may provide for its disposition including, but not limited to, the sale of the animal or livestock.”
State v. Barker, 714 N.E.2d 447 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998).
“She argues that R.C. 959.99(D) “provides for the forfeiture of only ‘the animal or livestock’ that was treated cruelly in violation of R.”
State v. Walker, 841 N.E.2d 376 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005).
“13) has a corresponding penalty statute (R.C. 959.99) that allows forfeiture of animals or livestock that are treated cruelly.”
State v. Wolfe, 2022 Ohio 2921 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
“{¶3} We overrule Wolfe’s arguments and conclude that the trial court had the authority to order Echo’s forfeiture pursuant to R.C. 959.99(D). Echo is the subject of Wolfe’s cruelty and the property forfeiture provisions in R.”
State v. Leslie, 2011 Ohio 2727 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011).
“Moreover, R.C. 959.99(D) provides that when a person violates R.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 959.99(E)(1) — 1 case
— Ohio Rev. Code § 959.99(E)(2) — 6 cases
State v. McCullough, 2018 Ohio 4499 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
“12(C), contending that he was improperly charged with a felony of the fifth degree while, pursuant to R.C. 959.99, the penalty for a first time violation of R.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 959.99(E)(3) — 1 case
— Ohio Rev. Code § 959.99(E)(4) — 1 case
— Ohio Rev. Code § 959.99(E)(6) — 2 cases
— Ohio Rev. Code § 959.99(E)(6)(a) — 4 cases
State v. Thames, 2022 Ohio 1715 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
“” {¶47} R.C. 959.99(E)(6)(a) provides: With respect to “a person who is convicted of or pleads guilty to a violation of section 959.”
State v. Bechtel, 2020 Ohio 4889 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
“{¶11} The State counters that the community control sanction in question is specifically provided for by R.C. 959.99(E)(6)(a) which provides: With respect to “a person who is convicted of or pleads guilty to a violation of section 959.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 959.99(E)(6)(b) — 4 cases
State v. Bechtel, 2020 Ohio 4889 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
“{¶11} The State counters that the community control sanction in question is specifically provided for by R.C. 959.99(E)(6)(a) which provides: With respect to “a person who is convicted of or pleads guilty to a violation of section 959.”
State v. Thames, 2022 Ohio 1715 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
“” {¶47} R.C. 959.99(E)(6)(a) provides: With respect to “a person who is convicted of or pleads guilty to a violation of section 959.”
State v. Caroline's Kids Pet Rescue, 2023 Ohio 761 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
“Reimbursement is permitted in cruelty to companion animal cases pursuant to R.C. 959.99(E)(6)(b), which provides: A court may order a person who is convicted of or pleads guilty to a violation of division (A) of section 959.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 959.99(F) — 1 case
— Ohio Rev. Code § 959.99(H) — 1 case
State v. Taylor, 2016 Ohio 7953 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
“R.C. 959.99(H). {¶24} Captain Clark Westfall testified that he helped organize a raid at a home in Akron, where the police suspected that the owner was conducting a dogfighting operation.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 959.99(I) — 1 case
State v. McCullough, 2018 Ohio 4499 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
“12(C), contending that he was improperly charged with a felony of the fifth degree while, pursuant to R.C. 959.99, the penalty for a first time violation of 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.