There was evidence of a long-standing issue concerning the four cemetery plots and involving Mr. Fourdyce and government entities and officials. … [I]t would be reasonable to conclude that Mr. Fourdyce realized that his statement, given his irate state, would be perceived as a threat of physical harm.
State v. Fourdyce
Ninth District Appellate Court
Lorain County, Ohio
May 11, 2026
Why is this case important?
State v. Fourdyce is important because it reinforces that Ohio’s menacing statute focuses on how a defendant’s conduct would reasonably be understood at the time it occurs, not on alternative explanations offered later in court. The Ninth District confirmed that an ambiguous statement such as “I’m coming for you” can support a menacing conviction when combined with anger, hostility and surrounding circumstances indicating a threat of physical harm. For law enforcement officers, the case serves as a reminder to thoroughly document not only the words spoken but also the speaker’s demeanor, tone, emotional state, prior history with the victim and the victim’s reaction, as those facts may ultimately determine whether a statement constitutes criminal menacing.
Background
In June 2024, a complaint was filed alleging that on June 11, 2024, Mr. Tomas Fourdyce committed the offense of menacing in violation of R.C. 2903.22 by threatening the Mayor of the Village of Wellington (“the Mayor”) during a phone call.
The matter proceeded to a bench trial at which both the Mayor and Mr. Fourdyce testified. The trial court found Mr. Fourdyce guilty and proceeded to sentence him. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a ten day sentence which it then suspended. However, the sentencing entry reflects that the trial court sentenced Mr. Fourdyce to thirty days with all of it suspended.
Because it is clear that the sentencing entry contains a clerical error, upon remand, the trial court shall issue a nunc pro tunc entry to correctly reflect the ten day sentence and suspension.
Mr. Fourdyce has appealed, raising a single assignment of error for our review.
Appeal – did Mr. Fourdyce Menace the Mayor of Wellington, Ohio?
In his sole assignment of error, Mr. Fourdyce asserts that the State failed to prove that he knowingly caused the Mayor to believe that Mr. Fourdyce would cause the Mayor physical harm. Thus, Mr. Fourdyce maintains that the finding of guilt is based upon insufficient evidence.
Menacing
Mr. Fourdyce was found guilty of violating O.R.C. §2903.22. R.C. 2903.22(A)(1) provides in relevant part, that “[n]o person shall knowingly cause another to believe that the offender will cause physical harm to the person or property of the other person . . . .”
What is Physical Harm?
“‘Physical harm to persons’ means any injury, illness, or other physiological impairment, regardless of its gravity or duration.” O.R.C. §2901.01(A)(3). “‘Physical harm to property’ means any tangible or intangible damage to property that, in any degree, results in loss to its value or interferes with its use or enjoyment. [It] does not include wear and tear occasioned by normal use.” O.R.C. §2901.01(A)(4).
What is Knowingly?
A person acts knowingly, regardless of purpose, when the person is aware that the person’s conduct will probably cause a certain result or will probably be of a certain nature. A person has knowledge of circumstances when the person is aware that such circumstances probably exist. When knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense, such knowledge is established if a person subjectively believes that there is a high probability of its existence and fails to make inquiry or acts with a conscious purpose to avoid learning the fact. O.R.C. §2901.22(B).
Established Case Law – Menacing
“Under R.C. 2903.22(A), therefore, a defendant does not need to intend to cause the victim to fear physical harm; it is sufficient that the defendant was aware that his conduct would probably cause that result. An overt threat is not required. Rather, the statute proscribes a much broader spectrum of behavior by criminalizing any conduct engaged in by a person knowing that such conduct would cause another to believe the offender will cause the other person . . . physical harm.” (Internal citations and quotations omitted.) State v. Williams, 2019-Ohio-1931, ¶ 6 (9th Dist.).
A Tenured Mayor and Councilman
At trial, the Mayor testified that he had been the Mayor of the Village of Wellington for nine years and prior to that he had served fourteen years as a council member. The Mayor indicated that he had a few dealings with Mr. Fourdyce over the years related to different issues. The Mayor acknowledged that Mr. Fourdyce had served on the Design Review Board and some of the interactions related to that. Most of the interactions occurred over Facebook Messenger. The Mayor testified that it was common for him to engage in dialogue with residents over social media. The Mayor’s office was also open to the public, and his cell phone number was available to residents. The Mayor also admitted that on rare occasions, a resident would also show up at his house to raise an issue or concern.
Contact the Cemetery Board and an Attorney
In May 2023, Mr. Fourdyce reached out to the Mayor asking questions about the Cemetery Board. The Mayor told Mr. Fourdyce that, if he was having issues with the Cemetery Board, he should probably contact an attorney. Mr. Fourdyce thanked the Mayor.
Cemetery Plot Dispute
Mr. Fourdyce later reached out to the Mayor stating that Mr. Fourdyce was not getting anywhere with the Cemetery Board. Mr. Fourdyce’s mother had previously purchased four plots in the cemetery, but they were not completely paid for. Two of the plots housed the remains of Mr. Fourdyce’s brother and sister and the cemetery may have filled one or both of the other two plots. Mr. Fourdyce wanted the Village of Wellington to take responsibility and help resolve the issue.
The Mayor proposed that the Cemetery Board would find four new plots and absorb the expense to move the remains of Mr. Fourdyce’s siblings to the new plots. Mr. Fourdyce seemed to be agreeable to the idea but also questioned whether he could sign the agreement if Mr. Fourdyce’s mother refused.
Greenwood Cemetery, Village of Wellington, Ohio
Fourdyce Family Challenges
Mr. Fourdyce later told the Mayor that Mr. Fourdyce’s mother was no longer speaking to him and he was upset, agitated, and angry.
Mr. Fourdyce Appears at the Village Council
In approximately April 2024, Mr. Fourdyce came to a council meeting and spoke at the meeting. The Mayor described Mr. Fourdyce as being angry and indicated that he was saying things that were not true. The Mayor began to interrupt Mr. Fourdyce to correct him, and Mr. Fourdyce became agitated and ended up leaving the meeting. The Mayor subsequently reached out to Mr. Fourdyce and told him that the Mayor probably should have let Mr. Fourdyce continue speaking but the Mayor was frustrated with the false statements Mr. Fourdyce made at the meeting and previously on social media.
I’m Coming for You.
The Inception of Political Aspirations or a Threat?
Eventually, Mr. Fourdyce’s mother relented and agreed with the proposed resolution. On June 11, 2024, the Mayor received a phone call from Mr. Fourdyce around 6:00 pm. Mr. Fourdyce was very irate. He accused the Mayor of knowing that his siblings’ remains were being moved that day and Mr. Fourdyce was upset that he was not told about it. The Mayor testified that he did not know about the moving of the remains ahead of time as he does not directly oversee the cemetery. The Mayor asserted that he only knew it had occurred after it was over. The Mayor indicated that Mr. Fourdyce was yelling on the phone and blaming everyone including the Mayor. Mr. Fourdyce then said, “I’m coming for you.” Following that statement, Mr. Fourdyce ended the call.
The Mayor took it as a threat.
The Mayor took the statement as a threat and described being shocked. The Mayor took it as a threat because his prior dealings with Mr. Fourdyce caused him to think that Mr. Fourdyce was someone who “act[ed] on emotion, act[ed] on anger, [and] [absolved] himself of any blame of anything, and cast it upon others.” The Mayor expressed fear that Mr. Fourdyce would show up at his home. The Mayor believed Mr. Fourdyce might cause the Mayor physical harm due to Mr. Fourdyce’s erratic behavior on social media and how he handled other issues. The Mayor reported the incident to the police within fifteen minutes of it occurring. Prior to the June 11, 2024 incident, the Mayor had never filed a complaint or gone to the police about Mr. Fourdyce’s behavior.
Mr. Fourdyce reiterated in the call that his main concern was knowing when his siblings’ remains would be moved.
Mr. Fourdyce also testified about the events at issue. Mr. Fourdyce acknowledged that Mr. Fourdyce’s mother had still owed money on one of the plots. In May 2023, Mr. Fourdyce visited the cemetery and noticed that one of the family plots had been used when it should have been empty. Mr. Fourdyce tried to raise his concern with the Cemetery Board but was not getting anywhere. Then he reached out to the Mayor in June 2023. The Mayor proposed moving Mr. Fourdyce’s siblings to other graves in the same section. In April 2024, Mr. Fourdyce went to the council meeting because he wanted to know the date that his siblings’ remains would be moved. Mr. Fourdyce described being interrupted and berated by the Mayor. This made Mr. Fourdyce agitated and he left. Mr. Fourdyce acknowledged that the Mayor later called Mr. Fourdyce to apologize. Mr. Fourdyce reiterated in the call that his main concern was knowing when his siblings’ remains would be moved.
[T]he funeral director was told not to tell Mr. Fourdyce the date the remains would be moved.
On June 11, 2024, Mr. Fourdyce stopped by the cemetery and saw that his siblings’ remains were being moved and that they were being moved to a section not in the original proposal. It was very upsetting to Mr. Fourdyce because he had made it clear that he wanted to be there for the moving of the remains. In addition, Mr. Fourdyce was also distressed because his sister’s remains were moved close to the remains of the person who was responsible for her death. Further, the remains of the siblings were not buried in the correct order. Mr. Fourdyce called the funeral director and was told that the funeral director was told not to tell Mr. Fourdyce the date the remains would be moved.
Mr. Fourdyce called the Mayor an “evil person”
Next, Mr. Fourdyce called the Mayor. Mr. Fourdyce asked the Mayor if he was aware of the situation and the Mayor said that he had received a message about it earlier but did not care. Mr. Fourdyce called the Mayor an “evil person” and said that Mr. Fourdyce was “coming for [the Mayor’s] title.” Then Mr. Fourdyce hung up on the Mayor. Mr. Fourdyce admitted that he made the statement knowingly and voluntarily.
What Happens When a Cemetery Dispute Refuses to Stay Buried?
Mr. Fourdyce testified that he meant that he was going to run against the Mayor and had no intention of causing the Mayor physical harm. Mr. Fourdyce denied ever saying that he was coming for the Mayor. Mr. Fourdyce claimed to have posted on social media over the years about his intent to run against the Mayor but did not present any of the posts as evidence. Mr. Fourdyce also acknowledged that he no longer lived in the Village of Wellington and could not run for Mayor of the Village of Wellington if he did not live there. Mr. Fourdyce additionally admitted that he told the Mayor in a message on Facebook Messenger that Mr. Fourdyce had been caused “so much pain and suffering” and that he was “ready to move forward and make this end once and for all[.]”
Court Concludes ‘I’m Coming for You’ was Menacing and Not an Intent to Become Village Mayor
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, we can only conclude that Mr. Fourdyce has not demonstrated that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the guilty verdict. There was evidence of a long-standing issue concerning the four cemetery plots and involving Mr. Fourdyce and government entities and officials. Understandably, Mr. Fourdyce was very emotional and upset about what had occurred and was occurring. Nonetheless, the record contains evidence that Mr. Fourdyce called up the Mayor, yelled at him, told the Mayor that Mr. Fourdyce was “coming for” the Mayor, and then hung up. The Mayor perceived this as a threat and quickly reported the incident to the police. Irrespective of whether Mr. Fourdyce intended to threaten the Mayor, his behavior and statement, when viewed in a light most favorable to the State, support that Mr. Fourdyce acted knowingly; it would be reasonable to conclude that Mr. Fourdyce realized that his statement, given his irate state, would be perceived as a threat of physical harm. See Williams, 2019-Ohio-1931, at ¶ 6 (9th Dist.).
Mr. Fourdyce’s assignment of error is overruled.
Mr. Fourdyce’s assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Oberlin Municipal Court is affirmed, and the matter is remanded for the issuance of a nunc pro tunc sentencing entry as explained above.
Information for this article was obtained from State v. Fourdyce, 2026 – Ohio – 1702.
State v. Fourdyce, 2026 – Ohio – 1702 was issued by the Ninth District Appellate Court on May 11, 2026 and is binding in the following Ohio Counties: Lorain, Medina, Summit and Wayne.
Lessons Learned
Is a Specific Threat Required To Sustain a Menacing Conviction? Menacing does not require an express threat. A suspect does not have to say, “I am going to hurt you.” Courts will evaluate the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the suspect knowingly caused another person to believe physical harm would occur. The context in which the words were spoken also matters. The suspect tone of voice, emotional state, prior interactions, social media activity and the manner in which a statement is delivered can transform otherwise ambiguous words into criminal conduct.
Totality of the Circumstances – Courts are often skeptical of after-the-fact explanations. Although Mr. Fourdyce claimed he meant he was “coming for the Mayor’s title” and intended to run against him politically, the court focused on how the statement would reasonably be perceived when made by an irate caller who immediately hung up after making the remark. This is why documentation of a suspect’s actions is very important in establishing the totality of the circumstances when investigating and criminally charging a suspect.
Future Mayor? Mr. Fourdyce testified that he meant he was “coming for the Mayor’s title,” not threatening the Mayor. There was, however, a practical problem with that explanation. Mr. Fourdyce acknowledged that he no longer lived in Wellington, making him ineligible to run for mayor. The next mayoral election in the Village of Wellington is scheduled for November 2027, leaving plenty of time for Mr. Fourdyce to re-establish residency and launch a mayoral campaign.
Does your agency train on Laws of Arrest?
Don’t fail your training.
Don’t let your training fail you!
Be safe, smart and objectively reasonable!