Prosecutors say Devonta Jones restrained the woman inside a vehicle before assaulting her at an isolated location.

CINCINNATI, Ohio — An Ohio man forced the mother of his two children into a vehicle, prevented her from getting out and drove her to a creek where he strangled her until she lost consciousness, prosecutors alleged during a court appearance.

Devonta Jones, 25, faces charges of abduction, strangulation and theft in connection with the alleged May 15 attack in Cincinnati’s Lower Price Hill neighborhood. Jones appeared in Hamilton County Municipal Court on June 27, where a prosecutor described an encounter that allegedly began near the woman’s home and became increasingly threatening as Jones drove her away. Jones later posted 10% of a $2,000 bond and was released from custody, according to reporting based on the hearing and court documents. The charges remain allegations, and Jones has not been convicted.

The reported sequence began at a home on State Avenue near Liberty Street, according to court records cited by local television station WKRC and Law&Crime. Prosecutors said Jones pushed the woman into a vehicle and made her put on a seat belt. He then allegedly kept a hand on or near the buckle so she could not release it and leave. The accusation is central to the abduction charge because prosecutors are not describing a voluntary ride that later became an argument. They allege Jones used physical force and the vehicle’s restraint system to control where the woman could go.

As Jones drove away from the neighborhood, he allegedly warned the woman, “I’m about to do you bad,” according to court documents reviewed by Law&Crime. Prosecutors said he took her to an unidentified creek away from the home. Once there, he allegedly told her, “Nobody will hear you here.” The reported remarks are important to the prosecution’s account because they place the alleged assault within a continuing course of threats, forced movement and isolation. Authorities have not publicly identified the creek or explained how far Jones allegedly drove.

The woman told police that she and Jones argued after reaching the creek and that the dispute became physical, according to the reports. She accused Jones of putting his hands around her neck and applying pressure until she lost consciousness. Publicly available accounts do not say how long she was unconscious, whether she received hospital care or what injuries investigators documented. They also do not describe how she left the creek or when police first became involved. Those details may emerge later through testimony, police reports or additional court filings.

Ohio law defines strangulation or suffocation as conduct that interferes with normal breathing or blood circulation through pressure on the throat or neck or by covering a person’s nose and mouth. The law recognizes several levels of the offense based on the harm caused or the risk created. The public reports identify the charge against Jones as strangulation but do not specify which subsection prosecutors used or the degree assigned to the count. That distinction matters because Ohio’s penalties vary according to the alleged level of harm, the risk of serious harm and certain relationships or prior convictions.

The abduction allegation addresses a different part of the prosecution’s account. Under Ohio law, a person may commit abduction by knowingly using force or threats to remove someone from where that person is found. The law also covers using force or threats to restrain another person’s freedom under circumstances that create a risk of physical harm or cause fear. Prosecutors allege both forced movement and restraint in this case: first by pushing the woman into the vehicle and then by keeping her from releasing the seat belt while Jones drove away.

Jones also is accused of taking the woman’s iPhone without permission. That allegation supports the theft charge, which is separate from the accusations involving the vehicle and creek. Ohio’s theft law generally prohibits knowingly taking or controlling property with the purpose of depriving its owner of it, including when the property is taken without consent or through threat or intimidation. Available reporting does not state the phone’s value, whether police recovered it or whether prosecutors believe it was taken before, during or after the alleged assault.

At Jones’ arraignment, his defense attorney challenged the credibility of the accusations rather than conceding the prosecution’s version of events. The attorney referred to an earlier menacing matter that reportedly had been dismissed and asserted that the same woman previously made a false allegation against Jones. “I think this might be a case where somebody is weaponizing the system when they don’t get what they want,” the attorney said in court, according to WKRC. The reports do not identify the earlier case, explain why it was dismissed or provide records establishing that a prior accusation was false.

The defense argument and the prosecutor’s account represent competing positions at an early stage of the criminal process. Statements made during an initial hearing are not findings of fact, and the prosecution still must support each charge with admissible evidence. Jones’ attorney may challenge the woman’s account, the circumstances of police interviews, medical evidence, physical evidence and any statements attributed to Jones. Prosecutors, in turn, may rely on witness testimony, messages, location information, photographs, medical records or other evidence if those materials exist and are admitted by the court. None of that evidence has been tested at trial in the publicly reported proceedings.

The relatively low bond does not determine the strength or seriousness of the allegations. Bond is generally intended to address a defendant’s release while a case is pending, including the likelihood of returning to court and any conditions a judge considers necessary. The available reports say Jones paid 10% of the $2,000 amount, meaning he was no longer being held after the hearing. They do not provide a complete list of release conditions, say whether a no-contact order was entered or identify any restrictions involving the woman or the couple’s children.

The case also illustrates why the individual charges must be evaluated separately. The abduction count focuses on whether Jones knowingly removed or restrained the woman through force or threats. The strangulation count focuses on the alleged pressure to her neck and the harm or risk created. The theft count concerns control of the iPhone without consent. Prosecutors may present the three accusations as connected parts of one event, but they retain the burden of proving the legal elements of every count beyond a reasonable doubt if the case reaches trial.

Several basic questions remain unanswered in the public record. Authorities have not released a full police narrative, identified independent witnesses or disclosed whether any part of the alleged trip was captured by surveillance cameras. The reports do not say whether investigators searched the vehicle or creek area, obtained phone-location records or documented injuries consistent with the woman’s account. They also do not say whether Jones gave police a statement. The absence of those details from early news coverage does not establish that such evidence exists or does not exist.

Hamilton County court information can change as hearings are scheduled, continued or transferred, and later proceedings may clarify the exact degree of each charge, the evidence prosecutors intend to present and the conditions attached to Jones’ release. Jones’ next court date was not immediately available in the initial reports. Unless Jones enters a plea resolving the case, prosecutors would have to continue through the applicable pretrial process and prove the accusations in court. Jones is presumed innocent unless and until he is found guilty.

Author note: Last updated July 27, 2026.