Prosecutors say the footage shows Andrea Roman steering at Bryan Hicks; the defense says the deadly move was a gear mistake in a new vehicle.
NORTH LAS VEGAS, Nev. — A witness video recording has become the key evidence in a murder case against Andrea Roman, whom prosecutors accuse of deliberately driving her new SUV into Bryan Hicks outside an Olive Garden while the couple’s youngest child sat in the back seat.
What makes the case stand out is how much depends on a few seconds of movement in a parking lot. Prosecutors say the footage shows Roman nudging the vehicle forward, stopping, steering toward Hicks and then continuing over him. The defense says those same moments can be read as confusion by a driver who had owned the SUV for only hours. A judge ruled after a Feb. 24 preliminary hearing that the dispute should be settled by a jury, not dismissed as a simple accident before trial.
Police first described the case in an arrest report after officers responded on Oct. 18, 2025 to an unresponsive man near a red SUV in the parking lot of a restaurant in the 1200 block of East Craig Road. That man was later identified by the Clark County coroner’s office as Bryan Hicks, 40, of North Las Vegas. Roman, also 40, was taken into custody and booked on an open murder charge with a deadly weapon enhancement. According to police, Roman told investigators she and Hicks had been in a relationship for about 20 years and had eight children together, ranging from age 4 to 22. She referred to Hicks as her husband, though they were not legally married. She also said their 4-year-old daughter was in the back seat at the time of the collision. Those facts gave the case a family dimension from the start, but the legal focus soon narrowed to what the available recordings did and did not show.
The arrest report said dash-cam footage from a witness captured Roman and Hicks in front of the Mitsubishi Outlander during a physical fight. Investigators said the SUV then jolted forward three times, stopping quickly after each movement. After the third jolt, Hicks picked up a pair of glasses from the ground and threw them in front of the vehicle, according to police. He then walked away in the direction of the restaurant. Police said Roman turned the wheel toward him and drove into him with his back to the vehicle, launching him forward onto his back. The report said the SUV slowed but did not stop for good. Instead, it continued until Hicks became trapped beneath the front driver’s-side tire. At the preliminary hearing, prosecutor Kassandra Acosta used nearly the same sequence to argue Roman acted knowingly. “She clearly knew,” Acosta said, pushing back against the defense claim that Roman had mistaken drive for reverse.
Roman’s own statements gave investigators both incriminating and exculpatory material. She told police she was not used to the new Outlander’s gears and thought she had shifted into reverse. When officers asked why the wheels turned toward Hicks, she reportedly said the movement was “only to scare him.” That answer may prove important at trial because it appears to concede a conscious steering action even as it denies an intent to hit. Her attorney, David Lopez-Negrete, later argued the gear design mattered. He told the court the SUV did not have a traditional gearshift and said officers had difficulty changing gears after the crash. He also emphasized that Roman had owned the vehicle for less than a day. In his view, the state was reading certainty into a scene that could also show panic and unfamiliarity. His broader point was that a split-second error in a new car should not automatically be treated as proof of murder.
Medical evidence, however, gave prosecutors a way to connect the video to the cause of death. According to hearing coverage, a medical examiner testified Hicks died of traumatic asphyxia after his head and neck were pinned under the SUV’s tire. That finding helped explain why prosecutors described the case not simply as a strike but as a crushing death. It also fit with witness descriptions that the vehicle came to rest on Hicks rather than bouncing away after impact. The criminal complaint accuses Roman of willful, deliberate and premeditated murder. That wording sets a high bar, and a jury would still have to sort out whether the state has proved intent beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet the evidence already made public gives prosecutors several layers to work with: a recorded sequence, multiple civilian witnesses, Roman’s statements about the gear and steering, and medical testimony describing how Hicks died underneath the vehicle.
The public nature of the scene could shape the trial almost as much as the video itself. Police said several Olive Garden patrons saw the fight or its aftermath while at the restaurant. One bystander with a concealed firearm allegedly drew it and ordered Roman to stop when authorities say she appeared ready to drive away. An off-duty police detective was also reported to be present. In many criminal cases, investigators rely heavily on one or two witnesses. Here, the state appears to have a larger circle of observers from a busy daytime setting. That does not end the dispute. Defense lawyers can still challenge visibility, timing, memory and the stress of the moment. But it means the prosecution is not building the case on a hidden or unwitnessed event. It is building it on a public confrontation in which several people saw enough to form judgments that police recorded within hours.
The court process now turns from probable cause to trial preparation. The judge at Roman’s preliminary hearing ruled there was enough evidence to let a jury decide the matter and kept the murder charge in place. Roman was scheduled to return to court on Thu., Feb. 26, 2026, for arraignment. In the months ahead, lawyers are likely to fight over how much of the video jurors should see, whether expert testimony on vehicle controls is allowed and how Roman’s statements to police will be presented. Prosecutors will likely frame the case as one of repeated controlled movements ending in a deliberate steering decision. The defense will likely frame it as a tragic collision during a chaotic domestic fight. The same video may serve both stories, which is why the footage sits at the center of the case.
The emotional pull of the evidence has already been visible in court. Reporters covering the hearing said Roman cried, rocked back and forth and at times covered her ears while testimony was presented. Outside the courtroom, the facts remain stark and simple. A man was killed in a restaurant parking lot. The person accused was the mother of his children. Their youngest child was said to be inside the SUV. The outcome now depends on how jurors read a handful of seconds on video and whether those seconds show confusion, rage or a choice that prosecutors say was deliberate.
As the case moves forward, the video remains the clearest public window into what happened outside the Olive Garden. The next identified step was Roman’s Feb. 26, 2026 arraignment, after which pretrial fights over footage, witnesses and intent were expected to shape the path to trial.
Author note: Last updated March 24, 2026.