Appeals Court Upholds Stalking Convictions and Sentence Reduction in Decade-Long Harassment Case: Commonwealth v. Hayes (AC 25-P-347 & 25-P-607, September 24, 2026)

Michael Hayes met his victim in high school in 2005. She declined a date but gave him her phone number to be kind. That small gesture launched an eleven-year campaign of harassment that ended with Hayes behind bars, convicted of stalking, witness intimidation, identity fraud, and unauthorized access to computer systems.

The Appeals Court affirmed all of Hayes’s convictions, rejecting his challenges to searches of his electronic devices, the sufficiency of evidence on a witness intimidation charge, and jury instructions on authentication of electronic communications. The court also affirmed a trial judge’s decision to reduce Hayes’s sentence two years after initial sentencing, over the Commonwealth’s objection.

The Facts

After the victim declined to date Hayes in 2005, she told him they could be friends. Hayes began calling her, telling her he loved her. The victim became uncomfortable and limited contact to school. Hayes waited outside her classes and followed her. When she asked him to leave her alone, he yelled and swore at her until others intervened. School officials held a meeting with Hayes, his parents, and the victim’s mother, instructing Hayes to leave the victim alone. He did not.

Hayes sent notes and e-mail messages that escalated from friendly and apologetic to profane, angry, and threatening. When the victim went to college, Hayes obtained her college e-mail address. After she blocked him on social media, he implored her to unblock him, sometimes implying he would hurt her, other times hinting he would hurt himself.

In 2009, the victim returned from studying abroad to find her car keyed from top to bottom. She obtained a harassment prevention order. Two years later, Hayes twice approached her at a gym. She ended her membership out of fear. In 2015, Hayes sent another e-mail to the victim’s work address after suffering a stroke, writing that he would not stalk her but would always love her. She obtained a one-year harassment prevention order.

While that order was in place, the victim received e-mail messages from anonymous addresses in which Hayes threatened to end his life, blamed the victim’s family, and demanded the order be lifted. He contacted the victim’s mother on Facebook, saying the order was ruining his career prospects in law enforcement and threatening to make the family come back every year to renew it. The victim obtained a permanent order in December 2016.

In March 2019, a stranger texted the victim saying someone had tried to hire him to hack into her Facebook and Google accounts. The stranger, a self-described hacker concerned about Hayes’s intentions, had discovered Hayes’s identity through a Discord server and contacted the victim to warn her. The victim reported this to police.

In November 2019, the victim received five unanswered calls in quick succession, including one from a number connected to Hayes. Police obtained an arrest warrant and a search warrant for Hayes’s electronic devices. Execution of the warrant revealed screenshots of login pages for accounts belonging to the victim and others, screenshots of conversations with the hacker, Notes entries titled “Hacking Facebook profiles” and “Hacking Snapchats,” and a folder with the victim’s name containing altered images of her appearing partially nude.

While charges were pending, the victim continued receiving alerts about login attempts. An e-mail message, apparently from Hayes, said he had succeeded in what he was attempting and threatened to embarrass her if she did not stop going forward with trial. The victim’s mother received an e-mail threatening her daughter’s arrest for child pornography and destruction of her teaching career.

In August 2020, the victim’s mother received e-mail messages from accounts appearing to belong to different women. The messages threatened to kill the victim’s father if Hayes spent one day behind bars. Four women testified at trial that they did not know Hayes, did not send the messages, and had private Snapchat photographs that had been compromised. Police obtained another warrant and arrested Hayes. While he remained in custody, the threats ceased.

The Search Warrant Challenge

Hayes argued that police exceeded the scope of the 2019 warrant by seizing images and files from the Notes application. The warrant authorized seizure of internet search history, communication history (including e-mail, text messages, and phone logs), login history for e-mail and social media, and data related to password manipulation software and malware that could infiltrate the victim’s accounts.

The court held that the search fell within the warrant’s scope. Screenshots of login pages constituted login history. Screenshots of conversations with the hacker about accessing the victim’s accounts fell within communication history and data related to infiltrating accounts. Police reasonably searched a picture folder bearing the victim’s name because it could contain communication history. The Notes application was a reasonable place to search for evidence of attempts to communicate with the victim, and entries on hacking Facebook and Snapchat fell squarely within authorized categories.

Witness Intimidation Through the Mail

While in jail awaiting trial, Hayes mailed the hacker what appeared to be a printout of the hacker’s driver’s license information, including date of birth and residential address. The printout featured a photograph of the hacker’s face with a swastika drawn on the forehead. Handwritten notations across the page included slurs, accusations, and references to people involved in the prosecution, calling the hacker an “FBI Faggot,” “GOVERNMENT CRIMINAL SCUM,” and accusing him of being “[b]utt buddy” with a detective.

Hayes argued the mailing did not constitute a true threat protected by the First Amendment. The court disagreed. The jury could find that Hayes targeted the hacker based on his role in launching the investigation. The mailing demonstrated Hayes’s ability to access personal information and deliver mail to the hacker’s home while in custody. The swastika-marked photograph, sent by a defendant in jail as a result of the hacker’s betrayal, objectively justified the hacker in fearing violence.

Authentication Instructions

Hayes objected to the judge’s instruction that the jury must find by a preponderance of the evidence that he authored electronic communications before considering them, while the Commonwealth had to prove each element of the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Hayes argued this instruction was superfluous and confused the jury.

The court held the instruction was correct. Authentication is a condition precedent to admissibility. The jury must first determine by a preponderance that the defendant authored a communication before considering it. This preliminary determination is distinct from the ultimate determination whether the Commonwealth proved each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge repeatedly emphasized that the Commonwealth bore the burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury asked clarifying questions, and the judge correctly answered them. Properly instructed juries are presumed to understand and follow the law.

Sentence Reduction Affirmed

Nearly two years after initial sentencing, the trial judge reduced the incarcerated portion of Hayes’s sentence after obtaining a Brief Risk Assessment for Violent Offending (BRAVO) report through a program that did not exist at the time of initial sentencing. The Commonwealth appealed, arguing the judge improperly considered a fact that did not exist at sentencing.

The Appeals Court affirmed the reduction. Although judges may not consider a defendant’s postconviction conduct when revising a sentence, the judge here did not do so. He used a newly available tool to analyze information available at the time of sentencing. The judge explicitly stated he did not rely on any of Hayes’s postconviction rehabilitation efforts. He sought to impose a more just sentence by considering the goals of punishment, deterrence, public protection, and rehabilitation.

Why It Matters

The decision reinforces several principles governing electronic evidence and criminal procedure. Police searching electronic devices under warrant may examine any files or applications that could reasonably contain the evidence described, even if those files or applications are not specifically named. Screenshots, photographs, and note-taking applications all fall within the scope of warrants authorizing seizure of communication history and evidence of account infiltration.

On witness intimidation, the case clarifies that mailings demonstrating knowledge of a witness’s personal information and ability to reach them, combined with threatening imagery, can constitute true threats not protected by the First Amendment. Context matters. A swastika-marked photo sent by a jailed defendant to a witness instrumental in his prosecution objectively justifies fear of violence.

The authentication instructions issue will guide trial judges handling cases built on electronic communications. The two-tiered standard is sound. Juries must first find authorship by a preponderance before considering the communication, then determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The distinction between these standards, though subtle, is legally necessary. Authentication is preliminary to relevance. Guilt is ultimate.

Finally, the sentence reduction holding confirms that trial judges retain discretion to use newly available risk assessment tools when reconsidering sentences, so long as they do not rely on postconviction conduct. The purpose of a motion to revise or revoke is to permit reconsideration of whether a sentence was just.

Read the full opinion: Commonwealth v. Hayes (AC-25-P-347-&-25-P-607, September 24, 2026).