The prosecution says Andrea Roman aimed at Bryan Hicks; the defense says she mishandled a newly purchased Mitsubishi Outlander.
NORTH LAS VEGAS, Nev. — A judge has ruled that a jury should decide whether Andrea Roman intentionally ran over Bryan Hicks outside an Olive Garden, rejecting a defense push to frame the Oct. 18, 2025 collision as a clear accident involving a vehicle Roman had owned for less than a day.
That ruling kept alive one of the sharpest questions in the case: not whether Hicks died under Roman’s SUV, but whether Roman meant to hit him. Prosecutors say witness video, bystander testimony and the path of the vehicle show a deliberate act. The defense says Roman confused the vehicle’s gear system, believed she was reversing and never intended to kill the father of her eight children. After Roman’s Feb. 24, 2026 preliminary hearing, the court found enough evidence to move the murder case ahead, setting up the next round of felony proceedings.
The fatal encounter began as an argument during what police described as an otherwise ordinary day of errands and driving. Roman and Hicks, both 40, had been together about 20 years, according to police, though they were not legally married. Roman referred to Hicks as her husband and told investigators they shared eight children, from age 4 to 22. Authorities said the couple had their youngest child with them on the day Hicks died. Roman had just bought a red Mitsubishi Outlander and had been driving it for much of the morning. At some point, according to police and prosecutors, the pair argued while inside the SUV. Roman later told officers that Hicks, who she said was dealing with back pain, wanted out of the vehicle. She pulled into the Olive Garden parking lot on East Craig Road. Roman said Hicks slammed the door and began kicking the SUV, and the confrontation moved to the front of the vehicle. What happened next turned the case from a domestic argument into a homicide prosecution.
At the hearing, prosecutors used the SUV’s movements to argue intent. Deputy District Attorney Kassandra Acosta said dash-cam footage from a witness showed Roman inching forward three times. After those movements, Hicks picked up a pair of glasses from the ground and tossed them in front of the SUV before turning away. Prosecutors said Roman then turned the wheel toward Hicks and accelerated. Police said the impact launched Hicks forward onto his back. The SUV slowed, but kept moving until part of Hicks’ head and neck was pinned under the front driver’s-side tire. Acosta told the court Roman knew what gear she had selected. “She knows the difference between reverse and drive,” Acosta said. Witnesses at the restaurant also told police they believed Roman intentionally struck Hicks, according to the arrest report. For prosecutors, those facts are the backbone of the case: repeated movement, a steering correction toward the victim, and continued pressure after contact.
The defense attacked that reading of the scene. Roman’s attorney, David Lopez-Negrete, argued the evidence leaves room for confusion and panic rather than murder. Roman told police she was not used to the Outlander’s controls and thought the SUV was in reverse. She also said she turned the wheels only to scare Hicks, not to hit him. Lopez-Negrete stressed that Roman had possessed the vehicle for less than a day and said there was no testimony showing she had already spent the morning shifting back and forth in ways that would prove deep familiarity with the gear selector. He also pointed to the lack of a traditional gearshift and said officers responding to the scene struggled to move the vehicle because of the gear system. In court, he said the evidence supported “a very viable argument” that the deadly contact was accidental. That position does not erase the fatal sequence described by police, but it gives jurors a simple defense theory: driver error in a tense moment, not a planned killing.
The medical testimony sharpened the legal stakes. Reporting from the hearing said a medical examiner testified Hicks died of traumatic asphyxia after being pinned under the SUV’s tire. That matters because it suggests the fatal injury involved more than a single strike. Prosecutors are likely to argue that this finding lines up with the video evidence and the witness descriptions of the vehicle continuing forward. The criminal complaint filed against Roman uses especially strong language, accusing her of willful, deliberate and premeditated murder and of using the SUV as a deadly weapon. Yet some facts remain unsettled in the public record. The full duration of the fight has not been publicly mapped minute by minute. No full video has been released. And while Roman said Hicks had never been physically violent with her in the prior 20 years of their relationship until that day, court reporting so far has not shown any self-defense claim strong enough to displace the prosecution’s theory. Those gaps may become more important once lawyers litigate what jurors can see and hear at trial.
The witness response at the scene also shaped the case in unusual ways. This was not a deserted roadway or a late-night hit-and-run. It was a restaurant parking lot with patrons coming and going. Police said several Olive Garden customers saw parts of the confrontation. One bystander with a concealed firearm reportedly drew it and ordered Roman to stop when authorities say she tried to leave after Hicks was struck. An off-duty detective was also said to be among the witnesses. That mix of civilian and trained observers could matter to jurors because it offers multiple viewpoints from people who were not connected to the couple. At the same time, defense lawyers may test what each witness could actually see, from what angle, and during which seconds of a rapidly moving event. Even small details, such as whether Hicks was fully turned away or how quickly the SUV moved after impact, could take on outsize importance in a trial centered on intent.
After the preliminary hearing on Tue., Feb. 24, 2026, the court bound the case over for further proceedings. In Nevada, that hearing does not decide guilt. It asks whether prosecutors have shown enough evidence to justify moving the felony case ahead. The judge’s ruling means Roman remains exposed to a murder prosecution with a deadly weapon enhancement. She was scheduled to return to court on Thu., Feb. 26, 2026, for arraignment. From there, the case is expected to move through district court, where lawyers can challenge statements, videos and expert conclusions before any trial date is set. If the case reaches a jury, prosecutors will try to prove Roman knowingly drove at Hicks. The defense will try to raise reasonable doubt by focusing on the SUV’s controls, the stress of the confrontation and Roman’s claim that she thought the vehicle was in reverse.
The courtroom scenes have already shown how emotional the case is likely to remain. Reporting from the Feb. 24 hearing described Roman as crying loudly, rocking back and forth and at times plugging her ears with her fingers as evidence was presented. None of that answers the legal question before jurors, but it underscores the human wreckage around the file: one parent dead, another jailed, a 4-year-old said to have been in the back seat and a family of eight children now tied to a murder case unfolding in public. Hicks died in a space most people associate with errands or lunch, not a fatal fight. That contrast between an ordinary setting and a brutal outcome is one reason the case has drawn such attention as it moves toward trial.
For now, the evidence dispute stays in place and the case goes on. Roman’s next key court step was listed as her Feb. 26, 2026 arraignment, with later hearings expected to determine what a jury will eventually hear about the parking-lot confrontation and the SUV that ended it.
Author note: Last updated March 24, 2026.