State v. Bonifas

2025 Ohio 5177

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: November 17, 2025
• Docket: 15-25-02
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Bonifas, 2025-Ohio-5177.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT VAN WERT COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 15-25-02 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

v.

ANTHONY J. BONIFAS, OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from Van Wert County Municipal Court Trial Court No. CRB 2400461

Judgment Affirmed

Date of Decision: November 17, 2025

APPEARANCES:

Austin C. Buchholz for Appellant

John Hatcher for Appellee Case No. 15-25-02

MILLER, J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Anthony J. Bonifas (“Bonifas”), appeals the

January 13, 2025 judgment of conviction and sentence of the Van Wert Municipal

Court.

{¶2} This case arises from an August 4, 2024 confrontation between Bonifas

and Alyiah Smith (“Smith”) culminating in Bonifas yelling “That’s it. I’m blowing

up your house.” On September 16, 2024, a complaint was filed in the Van Wert

Municipal Court charging Bonifas with a single count of aggravated menacing in

violation of R.C. 2903.21(A), a first-degree misdemeanor. At his initial appearance

on October 8, 2024, Bonifas entered a not-guilty plea.

{¶3} A trial to the court was held on January 10, 20251, at the conclusion of

which the trial court found Bonifas guilty as charged. The court proceeded

immediately to sentencing and Bonifas was sentenced to 90 days of local

incarceration, fined $100, and ordered to have no-contact with the victim for five

years. The trial court filed its judgment entry of conviction and sentence on January

13, 2025.

{¶4} On February 7, 2025, Bonifas filed his notice of appeal. He raises two

assignments of error, which we elect to address together.

1 We note that although the trial transcript references February 11, 2025, it appears that the trial was held on January 10, 2025.

-2- Case No. 15-25-02

First Assignment of Error

Appellant’s conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence presented at trial.

Second Assignment of Error

Appellant’s conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence presented at trial.

{¶5} In his first assignment of error, Bonifas argues that his conviction for

aggravated menacing was not supported by legally sufficient evidence. In his

second assignment of error, Bonifas argues that his conviction was against the

manifest weight of the evidence. For the reasons that follow, we disagree.

Standards of Review

{¶6} Manifest “weight of the evidence and sufficiency of the evidence are

clearly different legal concepts.” State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 389

(1997), superseded by statute on other grounds, State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89

(1997). Accordingly, we address each legal concept individually.

{¶7} “An appellate court’s function when reviewing the sufficiency of the

evidence to support a criminal conviction is to examine the evidence admitted at

trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average

mind of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio

St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus, superseded by state constitutional

amendment on other grounds, State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89 (1997).

Consequently, “[t]he relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a

-3- Case No. 15-25-02

light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found

the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. “In

deciding if the evidence was sufficient, we neither resolve evidentiary conflicts nor

assess the credibility of witnesses, as both are functions reserved for the trier of

fact.” State v. Jones, 2013-Ohio-4775, ¶ 33 (1st Dist.).

{¶8} On the other hand, in determining whether a conviction is against the

manifest weight of the evidence, a reviewing court must examine the entire record,

“‘[w]eigh[] the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider[] the credibility of

witnesses and determine[] whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the [trier

of fact] clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that

the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.’” Thompkins at 387,

quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 (1st Dist. 1983). A reviewing

court must, however, allow the trier of fact appropriate discretion on matters relating

to the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. State v. DeHass,

10 Ohio St.2d 230, 231 (1967). When applying the manifest weight standard,

“[o]nly in exceptional cases, where the evidence ‘weighs heavily against the

conviction,’ should an appellate court overturn the trial court’s judgment.” State v.

Haller, 2012-Ohio-5233, ¶ 9 (3d Dist.), quoting State v. Hunter, 2011-Ohio-6524,

¶ 119.

-4- Case No. 15-25-02

Bonifas’s Conviction

{¶9} The trial court found Bonifas guilty of aggravated menacing in violation

of R.C. 2903.21(A). That statute provides, in relevant part:

No person shall knowingly cause another to believe that the offender will cause serious physical harm to the person or property of the other person . . . or a member of the other person’s immediate family.

{¶10} As the statute indicates, the State was required to prove that

Bonifas acted knowingly, and pursuant to R.C. 2901.22(B), “[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.” “Aggravated menacing does not require proof that the

defendant is able to carry out his or her threat or that the defendant intends

to carry out the threat or believes himself or herself capable of carrying it

out.” State v. Gardner, 2017-Ohio-7241, ¶ 21 (8th Dist.). “Nor does it

require an ‘imminent fear of serious physical harm.’” Id., quoting State v.

Wetherby, 2013-Ohio-3442, ¶ 63 (5th Dist.). “It is sufficient if the defendant

knowingly causes the victim to believe the defendant will carry his or her

threat into execution.” Id.

Evidence at Trial

{¶11} At trial, Smith testified that she was 21 years old and lived at

903 Erie Street in Delphos, Van Wert County, Ohio. (Jan. 10, 2025 Tr. at 5,

7). Bonifas lived in the house two houses behind her for approximately ten

-5- Case No. 15-25-02

years. (Id. at 5-6). Smith recalled that she had a number of negative

interactions with Bonifas throughout that time, including Bonifas yelling at

her and the other neighborhood kids. (Id. at 7-8). Smith also recounted a

time when Bonifas threw eggs at her. (Id. at 8). Further, although Bonifas

had never previously physically assaulted Smith, she was aware of a situation

where Bonifas physically assaulted Smith’s cousin. (Id. at 8-9). Julie

Wagner, Smith’s mother, testified that in the ten years they have been

neighbors with Bonifas, there have been multiple “incidents” and that the

family has learned to keep their distance from him. (Id. at 40-41, 53-54).

{¶12} According to Smith, on August 4, 2024, she was standing

outside of her home when a white SUV drove past. (Id. at 9). Smith recalled

that the person in the passenger seat waved at her and, not immediately

recognizing the person as Bonifas, she did not wave back. (Id. at 9-10).

Smith testified that Bonifas then called her a “bitch,” which shocked Smith.

(Id. at 10).

{¶13} Approximately 15 minutes later, Bonifas rode his bicycle by

Smith’s house while she was sitting outside. (Jan. 10, 2025 Tr. at 10-11).

Bonifas said something to Smith which, because she was listening to music

through headphones, she could not hear. (Id. at 11). Smith removed her

headphones and asked, “What did you say?” Bonifas replied, “You fucking

-6- Case No. 15-25-02

heard me.” (Id.). After Smith denied that she heard him, Bonifas stated,

“That’s it. I’m blowing your house up.” (Id.).

{¶14} Smith recounted that after making that statement, Bonifas

continued to his house. (Id. at 11-12). Smith testified that Bonifas’s actions

caused her to be “frightened for [her] life” because she was “scared that he

was going to do it.” (Id. at 12-13). Smith testified that Bonifas’s previous

actions and his anger toward her and other members of the neighborhood

factored into her belief that Bonifas would follow through with his threat.

(Id. at 20). Smith stated that the house she lives in is owned by her parents,

but she has resided with them there for over a decade. (Id. at 14).

{¶15} Patrolman Sarah Couch (“Patrolman Couch”) testified that on

August 4, 2024, she responded to Smith’s residence to investigate an incident

involving Bonifas and Smith. (Jan. 10, 2025 Tr. at 23-24). Patrolman Couch

stated that, prior to that time, she was familiar with Bonifas due to his

involvement in previous incidents. (Id.). According to Patrolman Couch,

when she arrived at the house, Smith was “beside herself” “terrified,” and

crying. (Id. at 24). After interviewing Smith and her family, Patrolman

Couch proceeded to interview Bonifas, who initially denied leaving the

house that day. (Id. at 26-27).

{¶16} After presenting these witnesses, the State rested its case. (Id.

at 55).

-7- Case No. 15-25-02

{¶17} The defense called one witness, Bonifas’s mother, Susan

Bonifas, who denied that Bonifas had issues with Smith or her family in the

past. (Jan. 10, 2025 Tr. at 58-60).

Analysis: Sufficiency of the Evidence

{¶18} On appeal, Bonifas does not challenge the State’s evidence with

respect to the statements threatening to “blow up” Smith’s house or Smith’s belief

that Bonifas would carry through on his threat. Rather, Bonifas argues that because

Smith’s parents owned the house, rather than Smith, that the State did not establish

that Bonifas made a threat to Smith, a member of Smith’s immediate family, or

Smith’s property.

{¶19} However, “[a] [trier of fact] can make reasonable inferences from the

evidence.” State v. Knight, 2016-Ohio-8134, ¶ 26 (10th Dist.). “‘It is permissible

for a jury to draw inferences from the facts presented to them.’” Id., quoting State

v. Sanders, 1998 WL 78787, *3 (6th Dist. Feb. 13, 1998), citing State v. Palmer, 80

Ohio St.3d 543, 561 (1997). Accordingly, even though Smith did not own the house

where she lived for the past decade, the trial court could have made an inference

that Bonifas, who had been her neighbor for many years, would have been aware

that Smith lived in that house with her parents and that her personal belongings were

inside. Further, Bonifas’s statement, “That’s it. I’m blowing up your house,” can

reasonably be understood to be a threat to the lives of Smith and her immediate

family who lived in the house, as well as their property.

-8- Case No. 15-25-02

{¶20} Accordingly, we reject Bonifas’s argument that his conviction for

aggravated menacing was not supported by sufficient evidence. Bonifas’s first

assignment is overruled.

Analysis: Manifest Weight

{¶21} In his second assignment of error, Bonifas argues that his conviction

was against the manifest weight of the evidence. In support of his motion, he relies

on the same arguments he made with respect to the sufficiency of the evidence. We

reject those arguments on the same grounds as we did in the discussion of the

sufficiency of the evidence.

{¶22} To the extent that Bonifas is attempting to argue that the trial court

erred by believing the State’s witnesses, we note that “[a] verdict is not against the

manifest weight of the evidence because the finder of fact chose to believe the

State’s [evidence] rather than the defendant’s version of the events.” State v.

Martinez, 2013-Ohio-3189, ¶ 16 (9th Dist.). “‘Although we review credibility when

considering the manifest weight of the evidence, the credibility of witnesses is

primarily a determination for the trier of fact.’” State v. Cox, 2022-Ohio-571, ¶ 20

(3d Dist.), quoting State v. Banks, 2011-Ohio-5671, ¶ 13 (8th Dist.), citing DeHass,

10 Ohio St.2d at paragraph one of the syllabus. “‘The trier of fact is best able to

“view the witnesses and observe their demeanor, gestures[,] and voice inflections,

and use these observations in weighing the credibility of the proffered testimony.”’”

State v. Brentley, 2023-Ohio-2530, ¶ 33 (3d Dist.), quoting Banks at ¶ 13, quoting

-9- Case No. 15-25-02

State v. Wilson, 2007-Ohio-2202, ¶ 24, citing Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland,

10 Ohio St.3d 77, 80-81 (1984).

{¶23} We find that the record fully supports the trial court’s credibility

assessments, and we find no basis to alter its analysis. Having examined the record,

we do not conclude that the court lost its way when it returned a guilty verdict with

respect to the aggravated menacing charge. Accordingly, Bonifas’s second

assignment of error is overruled.

Conclusion

{¶24} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the

particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the Van Wert Municipal

ZIMMERMAN and WILLAMOWSKI, J.J., concur.

-10- Case No. 15-25-02

JUDGMENT ENTRY

For the reasons stated in the opinion of this Court, the assignments of error

are overruled and it is the judgment and order of this Court that the judgment of the

trial court is affirmed with costs assessed to Appellant for which judgment is hereby

rendered. The cause is hereby remanded to the trial court for execution of the

judgment for costs.

It is further ordered that the Clerk of this Court certify a copy of this Court’s

judgment entry and opinion to the trial court as the mandate prescribed by App.R.

27; and serve a copy of this Court’s judgment entry and opinion on each party to the

proceedings and note the date of service in the docket. See App.R. 30.

Mark C. Miller, Judge

William R. Zimmerman, Judge

John R. Willamowski, Judge

DATED: /jlm

-11-