Sierra Hadaway’s bond hearing brought the death of her 2-year-old daughter from a monthlong investigation into the courtroom.
LAFAYETTE, Ala. — Prosecutors asked a Chambers County judge to keep 22-year-old Sierra Shay Hadaway jailed while she faces a murder charge in the death of her 2-year-old daughter, moving a case that began with an emergency call in June into its next legal phase.
Hadaway appeared in court in July for an Aniah’s Law hearing after being charged in the June 12 death of Madilynn Hadaway. The state’s request to deny release focused attention on the seriousness of the allegation, but the hearing was not a trial and did not determine guilt. Authorities say investigators concluded Madilynn had been restrained by her arms, legs and ankles and placed face down on a bed for more than 12 hours. They believe she died from asphyxiation. Assistant District Attorney Taylor-Lee Stokes said prosecutors wanted Hadaway to remain in the Chambers County Detention Facility as the case moved forward and emphasized that the investigation was still active. The available public reports do not show that the allegations have yet been tested at trial.
The court appearance offered one of the first public looks at how prosecutors planned to move the case beyond the arrest stage. Stokes said the matter could go through a preliminary hearing and then be presented to a grand jury. Those proceedings serve different purposes from a criminal trial. A preliminary hearing may address whether the prosecution has sufficient grounds to continue holding a defendant to answer the charge, while a grand jury considers whether the state has enough evidence to issue an indictment. Neither proceeding requires the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Stokes said prosecutors intended to move ahead when permitted but did not provide a trial timetable. He also declined to disclose further details about the evidence because the investigation was continuing.
That legal process grew out of a June 12 emergency response at a residence on County Road 187 in the Cusseta area. Deputies and Lanett EMS were dispatched at about 9 a.m. after authorities received a report of a child who was not breathing. Deputies attempted lifesaving measures before paramedics arrived, according to the sheriff’s office. Madilynn was taken to East Alabama Medical Center Lanier and was pronounced dead there. Her body was sent to the Alabama Department of Forensic Science for an autopsy. At that point, public information centered on the death of a young child and the resulting investigation. It was only after investigators spent several weeks examining the case that the sheriff’s office announced the murder charge against Hadaway.
The allegation that emerged from that work is stark but narrowly described in the public record. Investigators said Madilynn’s arms, legs and ankles were bound and that she remained face down on a bed for more than 12 hours. Authorities said they believe the child died from asphyxiation. They have not publicly released the complete autopsy findings, a detailed timeline covering that period or a full explanation of what evidence they say connects Hadaway to each act described. They also have not publicly identified the material allegedly used as restraints or explained who else, if anyone, was present throughout the period under investigation. Because those details remain undisclosed, the criminal charge should not be treated as proof that Hadaway committed the alleged acts. Prosecutors will have to establish criminal responsibility through evidence presented in court.
The investigation also includes a second person whom law enforcement identified as a suspect. Christian Myles Sturkie died June 14 from what authorities described as a self-inflicted gunshot wound, two days after Madilynn’s death. The sheriff’s office has not publicly laid out the evidence that caused investigators to consider Sturkie a suspect or explained what role they believe he may have had in the case. That uncertainty is significant because his death means there can be no criminal proceeding in which allegations against him are resolved. It also leaves investigators and prosecutors to determine what admissible evidence, if any, associated with Sturkie may be relevant to the case against Hadaway. Public reporting has not established that Sturkie caused Madilynn’s death, and authorities have continued to investigate rather than announce a final account.
The detention question under Aniah’s Law is separate from those unresolved factual issues. Alabama’s legal framework permits judges in qualifying serious cases to consider whether a defendant should be held without bond based on the showing made in court. Prosecutors argued that Hadaway should remain confined while the case proceeds. WTVM reported on July 21 that the judge was expected to issue a written order after the hearing. A later reliable order was not located in the publicly available material reviewed for this report. Whatever the bond outcome, detention before trial is not a finding of guilt. Hadaway is entitled to the presumption of innocence unless and until prosecutors prove the murder charge through the judicial process.
Madilynn’s life is documented separately in an obituary published by Valley-Point Funeral Home in Lanett. She was born Sept. 22, 2023, and died June 12, 2026. Family members called her Maddie and described a child who enjoyed dolls, being outdoors and spending time with friends. The obituary also recalled her affection for a dog named Willow. Visitation took place June 23, with funeral and graveside services the following day. Those details have no bearing on whether the criminal charge can be proved, but they establish the identity of the child at the center of the case beyond the forensic and legal language now surrounding her death.
The court phase is likely to bring additional scrutiny to the distinction between what authorities have alleged and what they can prove. Investigators have publicly stated a suspected cause of death and an extended period of restraint, but prosecutors have not released a complete evidentiary record. A future preliminary hearing could produce testimony about the investigation, depending on how the case proceeds. A grand jury presentation, by contrast, is generally not a public trial of the evidence. If an indictment follows, later motions and hearings could provide more information about the prosecution’s theory, forensic findings and any statements or physical evidence the state seeks to use. For now, many of those details remain outside the public record.
The timing of Hadaway’s arrest also illustrates the difference between an initial death investigation and a criminal prosecution. Madilynn died June 12, but the murder charge was not publicly announced until July. During that period, the sheriff’s office worked with the district attorney’s office and state forensic authorities. That interval does not by itself establish what evidence was developed on any particular date. Authorities have not released an investigative chronology showing when they reached their conclusions about restraint, asphyxiation or Hadaway’s alleged role. What is known is that those conclusions were sufficiently developed by July for investigators to seek a murder charge and for prosecutors to begin litigating whether Hadaway should remain in custody.
At the same time, Sturkie’s death prevents one potentially important part of the case from being addressed through a conventional prosecution. Officials have called him a suspect but have not publicly described whether they believe he acted with Hadaway, acted independently, witnessed events or had some other connection to the investigation. Those possibilities cannot responsibly be inferred from the label alone. Any future effort by prosecutors to discuss Sturkie’s role will have to rest on evidence that can be properly introduced and evaluated in Hadaway’s case. Until then, his exact connection to Madilynn’s death remains one of the central unanswered questions.
Hadaway continues to face a murder accusation arising from her daughter’s death, while the Chambers County Sheriff’s Office, Fifth Judicial Circuit District Attorney’s Office and Alabama Department of Forensic Science remain the principal agencies publicly identified with the investigation. No conviction has been reported. The case’s next meaningful public developments are expected through court proceedings, a possible grand jury presentation or additional official disclosure of investigative findings.
Author note: Last updated Aug. 23, 2026.