News

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Wednesday, October 1, 2025

Man Tried to Buy Child for Abuse, Woman Gets Max Sentence

Alberta Grant, 34, of Zanesville, appeared in front of Common Pleas Judge Gerald Anderson for sentencing Monday afternoon after pleading guilty to the indictment filed against her.

Grant was charged with three counts of child endangering, two were misdemeanors, the third was a felony of the third degree. She was also indicted with two counts of obstructing justice, each a felony of the third degree.

After a lengthy hearing involving arguments from Grant’s attorney and Assistant Prosecutor John Litle, who handled the case, Judge Anderson pronounced his sentence. Alberta Grant was given the maximum possible sentence for her crimes, 9 years in prison.



Facts of the Case:

In April of this year, Det. Sgt. Brady Hittle with the Muskingum County Sheriff’s Office was alerted by the Licking County Adult Parole Authority that a convicted child rapist had been living in Muskingum County without registering.

Det. Hittle followed up, obtaining the sex offender’s phone and learning that the sex offender had been communicating with Alberta Grant. Grant had been permitting him to live in her home, with children to whom she owed a duty of care and protection.

Hittle learned from messages in the phone that Grant knew the man was a convicted child rapist. More than that, the man offered to pay half of Grant’s rent, her utilities, and to pay for school expenses in exchange for having access to one of the children. The sex offender said that he knew the child was young but “what the law don’t know won’t hurt them.”

Grant responded that she could not agree to the arrangement because her husband would find out.

Grant continued to allow the sex offender to reside in her home and to have access to the endangered children. What occurred thereafter resulted in serious physical harm, leading to the felony endangering children charge against Grant.

When interviewed by Hittle, Grant lied to cover up for the sex offender about his registration violation. She also lied about receiving letters and gifts from the sex offender meant for the child in question.

Lying to an investigator in an effort to make prosecution of another person more difficult is the crime of obstructing justice. In Grant’s case it was a felony of the third degree due to the severity of the crimes the sex offender faced.

Additional facts have been left out of this release due to the pending trial of other persons on other charges.



Human Trafficking:

This case did not result in charges of human trafficking because although Grant betrayed the children to whom she owed a duty of protection, she turned down an offer of money in exchange for providing a child for abuse.

The charge of human trafficking can only be filed against a person who obtains or provides a victim to a third person knowing that abuse will occur in exchange for money. When a person fails to protect a victim from a known risk, but does not meet the money exchange element, that offense is endangering children.



Sentencing:

At the sentencing hearing, APA Litle argued that Grant’s crimes were the worst form of the offense. He highlighted the fact that Grant’s actions were a total betrayal of the children put at risk.

During the argument Litle highlighted the frustration law enforcement frequently encounters in cases when guardians do not believe children who report abuse. Those situations involve offenders who aren’t previously convicted sex offenders.

Grant was worse, according to Litle, knowing ahead of time that the man she was assisting was a convicted child rapist and still putting children in that situation.

Finally, Litle highlighted the fact that she was offered nothing whatsoever in exchange for her plea except the promise that he would be arguing for a maximum sentence.

“The appropriate sentence in this case is nine years in prison, because the law doesn’t allow for ten or more.”

Judge Anderson was not impressed with Grant’s statements prior to sentencing and found that the safety of the public and the nature of the offense required a maximum, consecutive sentence.

“Sometimes it can be hard to understand how the outrageousness of a person’s conduct lines up with the outcomes available under the law, and this is one of those cases,” according to Litle. “We achieved the maximum punishment that was possible, and any frustration that more could not be done is a frustration shared by the public and the prosecutors handling the case alike.”

###
Follow the Muskingum County Prosecutor’s Office on Facebook for the most current and complete information.