News

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Friday, May 30, 2025

Zanesville Man Found Guilty by Jury of Strangling and Kidnapping, Sentenced to 21 Years in Prison

May 28, 2025, Ian M. Hayes appeared before Judge Anderson for sentencing on charges from Hayes’s violent attack on a local woman.

On March 18, 2025, Hayes went to trial for the attack. Hayes elected to be tried by a jury on charges of kidnapping and strangulation. Hayes was tried by the court on a specification alleging he was a repeat violent offender. The jury found him guilty of kidnapping and strangulation while Judge Anderson found him guilty of being a Repeat Violent Offender.

At the sentencing hearing, Judge Anderson imposed a maximum sentence of 21 mandatory years. An additional 5 ½ years in prison could be added on based upon Hayes’s behavior while in prison.

At his sentencing hearing, the Court also informed Hayes that he must register as a violent offender annually for the following 10 years.



Details of the Case:

On November 2, 2024, the Zanesville Police Department received a call from the victim. She said Ian Hayes wouldn't leave her home after he had grabbed her by the neck, slapped her, pushed her down, and strangled her.

When they arrived, police saw the victim's injuries. There were several large red marks on her neck, stretching from her collarbone to her chin. Officers at the scene said the marks on the victim’s neck were fresh and matched strangulation. The victim’s children were in the home during the attack and were there when police arrived.

According to the victim’s statement, she and Hayes shared a connection that involved only sexual interactions. At the time of the crime, Hayes often stayed at Lighthouse and carried his belongings in a box and bookbag while moving from place to place. He stayed at the victim’s home from time to time.

In her interviews and 911 call, the victim reported to law enforcement that Hayes triggered the attack when he was unable to find a specific hoodie in his bookbag and directed blame towards the victim’s children. After the victim shifted the blame from her children, Hayes isolated his victim in the bedroom and shut the door. Hayes then began yelling at her as the victim continued to shift the blame from her children.

Immediately after, as the victim tried to get away, Hayes took her to the ground on the side of a bed. The victim reported that she could not breathe as she was being strangled. She stated she thought Hayes was going to kill her. The victim reported that as she was on the verge of passing out her two children were standing outside the door.

Hayes, for an unknown reason, stopped strangling her. When he stopped, she stood up and Hayes then smacked her across the ear. Crying, she asked Hayes if she could leave the room. He refused her request to leave and directed her to find the hoodie. At this point, the victim was able to escape the room, gather her children to outside of the home and call 911.

The victim then made the call to 911 reporting the details of the attack. On the recording, the victim is heard hysterically relaying the events that took place. Her children are also heard crying in the background.

After law enforcement arrived on scene, officers took Hayes to the porch of the home to provide space for the victim to be interviewed. After interviewing the victim, Hayes was taken into custody and transported to the Muskingum County Jail.

Hayes was soon after convicted of a methamphetamine charge and sent to jail.

The sentencing memorandum submitted to the Court by assistant prosecuting attorney John Litle details a phone conversation from jail between Hayes and his victim. In the call referenced, the victim confirms to Hayes that there are three (3) spots on her neck with fingerprints, denying Haye’s claims that the marks are all hickeys. As time passed, Hayes maintained contact with his victim and the victim began to recant her account of the attack, stating that it did not happen

The case was then presented to a jury trial for final judgment, where the victim appeared on Hayes's behalf and testified that the attack did not happen.

During the jury trial, jurors listened to the victim's 911 call, the jail call, and exhibits were presented. One of the exhibits included a photograph officers took of the victim’s neck after arriving on scene. Alongside the 911 call, jurors were also presented with a phone call that Hayes made to the victim from jail, asking her not to press charges.



Breakdown of Sentencing:

Kidnapping Charge:

Hayes was charged with Kidnapping for the act of terrorizing (causing his victim to be in fear for her life) while restraining her liberty (holding his victim down as he strangled her and closing her in the bedroom, not allowing her to leave).

The Kidnapping charge, a felony of the first-degree, carried with it a minimum sentence of three (3) years, to a maximum sentence of eleven (11) years in prison. For this charge, Judge Anderson imposed the maximum sentence of 11 years in prison.

The repeat violent offender specification charge carried with it up to an additional 10-year sentence in prison, for which the Judge imposed the maximum sentence.

What qualified Haye’s Kidnapping charge for the repeat violent offender specification is a prior conviction for a Burglary in 2019. The Burglary was a violent offense, classified as a felony of the second-degree.

The kidnapping charge with the repeat violent offender specification brought sentencing to a 21-year prison sentence. When a person has a previous conviction for a first- or second-degree felony, any prison term for a new first or second-degree felony conviction is served as mandatory time, meaning Hayes will serve every single day of the 21 years, and his sentence cannot be reduced.

Strangulation Charge:

Hayes was also charged with Strangulation for the act of interfering with his victim’s ability to breathe. The Strangulation charge, a felony of the fifth degree, carried with it a maximum sentence of 12 months in prison, which the Judge imposed. He also ordered that the 12-month sentence is to be served concurrently with the kidnapping charge. A concurrent sentence means that the sentencing for the Strangulation charge is to be served at the same time as the Kidnapping charge, resulting in a minimum sentence of 21 years in prison.

If, while Hayes is incarcerated for his mandatory 21 years, he misbehaves in prison, the Ohio Parole Board could hold a hearing and add additional time to his sentence of up to 5 ½ years. This time, which can only be served for in-prison behavior which demonstrates ongoing dangerousness, is referred to as an “indefinite sentence.”

The indefinite sentence means that Hayes will serve every day of his minimum sentence of 21 years in prison, and if he is sanctioned by the Ohio Parole Board, no more than 26 ½ years.



A Note from The Muskingum County Prosecutor’s Office:

Domestic violence victimization is a cycle, and most often involves episodes of victimization, minimization, and concealment, followed by episodes of reaching out for help, recantation, and revictimization. The last step is escape. The goal of any public safety office, and specifically the goal of the Muskingum County Prosecutor’s office, is to break the cycle of domestic violence by keeping the abused safe from their abusers, and by ensuring that children do not witness abuse in the home.

Domestic violence is aggravated, or made worse, when children witness the crime, because those children can internalize the behavior and believe that violence in the home is acceptable, both in how they might treat a spouse in the future, or how they can expect to be treated.

Domestic violence prosecution is pursued by the prosecutor’s office, not by the victim. A victim’s desires for an outcome are taken into account, and their impact statements are conveyed to the court. Victims can speak at the sentencing hearing. But victims do not have the choice to “drop charges” because victims are not the entity that files charges. Where domestic abusers believe the victim controls charging decisions, they often reach out to apply outside-of-court pressure on the victim, which can include family, economic, and emotional manipulations.

The Muskingum County Prosecutor’s Office avoids these moral hazards by pursuing domestic violence prosecution wherever the facts and evidence merit charging, and by not eliminating or reducing charges solely for the reason that a victim has changed their mind. This is the best way to safeguard current and future victims of crime, as well as the children who are so often involved in the victimization.

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