Drive Into Death

Introduction. On October 18, 2025, what should have been an ordinary day in North Las Vegas, Nevada, ended with a father of eight lying dead in an Olive Garden parking lot, and prosecutors alleging that the person behind the wheel was the woman who had spent nearly two decades beside him. Andrea and Roman, 40, and Brian Hicks, also 40, had reportedly been together for approximately 20 years. During that time, they built a family of eight children, with their youngest only four years old. Their relationship had lasted through years of family life, responsibilities, disagreements, and the challenges that come with raising such a large family.

But on that October day, something went terribly wrong. According to prosecutors, Roman and Hicks became involved in a heated argument in the parking lot of an Olive Garden on East Craig Road. What happened next would become the central question of a murder case. Was Hicks deliberately struck by the SUV? Or was his death the result of a horrifying mistake? Prosecutors allege that Roman deliberately turned her newly purchased SUV toward Hicks and accelerated. They say the vehicle struck him and continued until it came to rest over his body.

And inside that vehicle, according to reports, was the couple's youngest child, a four-year-old who was allegedly present as the confrontation turned deadly. The medical consequences were catastrophic. Hicks suffered traumatic asphyxia after his head and neck became pinned beneath one of the SUV's tires. Despite whatever events led to that moment, the result was irreversible. A 40-year-old father was dead, and eight children were suddenly left without their father. But the case did not end with the death.

Instead, investigators and prosecutors were left with a crucial question. What exactly happened in those final moments? Was Roman trying to hurt Hicks? Did she intentionally accelerate toward him? Or, as she reportedly maintained, did she mistakenly believe the vehicle was in reverse rather than drive? Those competing explanations would become central to the criminal proceedings. During a preliminary hearing, prosecutors presented evidence they said supported their theory that the incident was intentional.

Clark County District Attorney Cassandra Acosta argued that Roman knew what she was doing when she accelerated toward Hicks. Witness accounts and surveillance footage were cited as important pieces of evidence. The defense position painted a very different picture. Roman has reportedly maintained that she never intended to kill Hicks and that she believed the vehicle was moving in reverse rather than forward. If that explanation is ultimately accepted, the meaning of the entire incident could change dramatically.

But prosecutors were not asking the court to decide Roman's ultimate guilt at the preliminary stage. They were arguing that enough evidence existed for the murder case to move forward. The judge ultimately agreed that sufficient evidence existed for the charge to proceed to trial. That decision does not mean Roman has been found guilty. It means the allegations against her have advanced to the next stage of the legal process, where a jury will eventually have to examine the evidence and determine what happened.

And behind all of the courtroom arguments is a family facing an unimaginable situation. eight children lost their father. Their mother is facing an open murder charge with a deadly weapon enhancement. And the youngest child, only four years old, was reportedly present during the incident that separated the family forever. The tragedy raises difficult questions about relationships, arguments, intention, perception, and the split-second decisions that can have permanent consequences. For Hicks' family, there is now a life without him.

For Roman, there is a serious criminal case that could determine the course of the rest of her life. And for investigators and prosecutors, the task is to reconstruct those critical moments in the Olive Garden parking lot and determine whether what happened was an intentional killing or a devastating accident. This is the story of Andrea and Roman and Brian Hicks, a longtime couple, parents of eight children, and a family whose lives changed forever in a matter of seconds. Part 1, A Family of Ten.

For nearly two decades, Andrea and Roman and Brian Hicks had built a life together. They were not simply a couple who had recently met or two people whose relationship was still in its early stages. According to reports surrounding the case, they had been together for approximately 20 years. During those years, their family grew. Roman and Hicks became parents to eight children, with the children ranging in age from 4 to 22. Their youngest child was still very young, while their oldest children were already entering adulthood.

A family that large comes with its own challenges. There are school schedules, meals, bills, responsibilities, disagreements, celebrations, and countless everyday moments that can easily become part of a family's routine. Whatever difficulties Roman and Hicks may have experienced in their relationship, they had remained connected for years and continued raising their children together. Then came October 18, 2025. That day would become the dividing line between the life their family knew before and the life that followed.

Roman had recently purchased a new SUV. At some point that day, she and Hicks ended up at an Olive Garden restaurant on East Craig Road in North Las Vegas. What brought them there was seemingly ordinary. But according to prosecutors, an argument began between the longtime partners. The details surrounding the argument would later become critically important to the investigation. Prosecutors would argue that the confrontation escalated to the point where Roman deliberately drove toward Hicks. The defense would dispute that interpretation.

And somewhere between those two versions of events was the truth that investigators needed to establish. The parking lot was no longer simply a place where customers parked their vehicles before entering a restaurant. It had become the scene of a fatal incident. According to prosecutors, Roman was behind the wheel of the SUV when she allegedly turned the vehicle toward Hicks and accelerated. Hicks was struck. The SUV eventually came to rest over his body. The consequences were devastating. Medical testimony later indicated that Hicks suffered traumatic asphyxia after his head and neck became pinned beneath one of the vehicle's tires.

He was 40 years old, and he was the father of eight children. But there was another heartbreaking detail that would make the case even more difficult to comprehend. The couple's four-year-old child was reportedly inside the vehicle at the time. That meant the youngest member of this family was allegedly present during the confrontation that ended with the death of their father. Within moments, a family of ten had been torn apart. Hicks was dead. Roman was facing a serious criminal investigation.

And eight children were left to deal with the loss of their father while also watching their family become the center of a murder prosecution. Yet investigators still had to answer the most important question. Did Roman mean to kill Hicks? The answer would depend on what happened in those critical moments before the SUV moved toward him and what Roman knew, saw, and intended when she pressed the accelerator. Part two, the argument. The events leading up to Brian Hicks' death became the foundation of the case against Andrea and Roman.

According to prosecutors, Roman and Hicks were involved in a heated argument in the Olive Garden parking lot on East Craig Road. Exactly what was said between them and what caused the confrontation to escalate would become an important part of the investigation. At some point, the argument moved beyond words. Roman was inside the newly purchased SUV. Hicks was outside the vehicle. Then the SUV began moving. Prosecutors would later allege that Roman intentionally directed the vehicle toward Hicks and accelerated.

Their argument was that this was not simply a vehicle moving unexpectedly. but a deliberate action that placed Hicks directly in the path of the SUV. Witness accounts became significant. People in the area reportedly observed the confrontation and what happened immediately afterward. Investigators also examined surveillance footage from the area, looking closely at the vehicle's movements and the positions of Roman and Hicks. For prosecutors, these details mattered because they could help establish whether Roman had control of the SUV and whether her actions appeared deliberate.

But Roman's account presented a completely different explanation. She reportedly maintained that she did not intend to kill Hicks. According to her account, she mistakenly believed the SUV was in reverse rather than drive. That distinction was enormous. If the vehicle had moved because Roman accidentally selected the wrong gear or misunderstood which direction it would travel, the incident could be viewed very differently from an intentional act of running someone over. But if prosecutors could prove that Roman knowingly turned toward Hicks and accelerated, the circumstances could support the murder allegation.

The difference between those two explanations rested on seconds. Investigators therefore had to reconstruct the sequence carefully. Where was Hicks standing? Where was Roman positioned? Which direction was the SUV facing? What did the surveillance footage show? What did witnesses observe? And perhaps most importantly, What was happening inside Roman's mind when the vehicle began moving? Those questions would eventually become central to the legal proceedings. Meanwhile, the reality outside the courtroom was devastating.

Hicks was seriously injured beneath the SUV. Emergency responders were called. Medical personnel eventually determined that the injuries were fatal. The father of eight was gone. For the children, there was no opportunity to change what had happened. Whatever explanation ultimately emerged from the investigation, they would still have to live with the consequences. The youngest child, only four years old, had reportedly been inside the vehicle during the incident. That detail added another painful dimension to the case.

A child who should have been experiencing an ordinary family day was instead reportedly present during an event that resulted in the death of their father. As investigators began piecing together the evidence, the case moved from a tragic death investigation toward a potential homicide prosecution. And the question became increasingly clear. Was this a terrible accident following an argument? Or had Roman deliberately used the SUV against Hicks? The answer would eventually have to be determined in court.

Part 3 The SUV The vehicle at the center of the investigation was not an old car that the family had owned for years. It was a newly purchased SUV. That detail would become important because prosecutors were not simply trying to establish that a vehicle had struck Brian Hicks. They were trying to determine exactly how the SUV was operated in the moments before Hicks was killed. According to the allegations presented in court, Andrea and Roman was behind the wheel while Hicks was outside the vehicle.

The two had been arguing. Then the SUV moved. For prosecutors, the movement of the vehicle was not consistent with an innocent accident. They argued that Roman deliberately turned the SUV toward Hicks before accelerating. The prosecution's theory depended heavily on what the vehicle did and where it went. If Roman had simply mistaken the gear and the SUV unexpectedly traveled in the wrong direction, that could support her claim that she never intended to hit Hicks. But if the evidence showed that she maneuvered the SUV toward him before accelerating, prosecutors could argue that those actions demonstrated intent.

This was why surveillance footage became such an important part of the investigation. Security cameras in and around the Olive Garden parking lot potentially captured portions of the confrontation. Investigators could examine the movements of the SUV, Hicks, and other people in the area. Video evidence can sometimes answer questions that witnesses cannot. A witness may remember seeing a vehicle move suddenly. Another person may remember hearing an argument. But surveillance footage can potentially show the physical sequence, where the SUV was positioned, how it changed direction, and what happened immediately before the collision.

prosecutors pointed to that evidence during the preliminary hearing. They also relied on witness accounts as they presented their case. Their argument was that Roman knew what she was doing when she accelerated toward Hicks. The defense, however, continued to challenge that interpretation. Roman reportedly maintained that she believed the SUV was in reverse rather than drive. If true, that would mean the fatal movement of the vehicle was not the result of a decision to run Hicks over. It would have been a catastrophic mistake.

And that distinction was at the heart of the case. There was also the question of what happened after Hicks was struck. The SUV came to rest over his body, leaving his head and neck pinned beneath a tire. Medical testimony later established that Hicks died from traumatic asphyxia. His death was therefore not simply the result of being struck. The positioning of the SUV caused devastating pressure to his head and neck. For investigators, every physical detail mattered. The position of the vehicle, the injuries Hicks suffered, the statements made by witnesses, the surveillance footage, and Roman's own explanation.

All of those pieces would eventually have to be examined together. But there was another factor that made the case particularly painful. Roman and Hicks were not strangers. They had reportedly spent around 20 years together. They had eight children, Their youngest child was only four. Whatever had happened between them that day, the consequences extended far beyond the two adults involved. Father had died. A mother was facing a murder charge. And eight children were left at the center of a tragedy that began with an argument and ended with one of their parents accused of killing the other.

As investigators continued examining the evidence, the case increasingly focused on those few critical seconds when the SUV moved toward Hicks. Those seconds would ultimately determine whether the incident was viewed as a tragic accident or as an intentional act of violence. Part 4. What the witnesses saw. The investigation did not depend entirely on Roman's explanation or the physical evidence left behind. There were also people who were reportedly in or around the Olive Garden parking lot when the confrontation unfolded.

Their observations became an important part of the prosecution's case. Witnesses could potentially describe what they heard before the SUV moved, where Hicks was standing, how Roman's vehicle was positioned, and what happened immediately afterward. For prosecutors, these accounts helped create a picture of the moments leading up to Hicks' death. The allegation was that Roman did not simply lose control of the SUV. Instead, Prosecutors argued that she deliberately directed the vehicle toward Hicks and accelerated.

That claim would be particularly important because Roman's reported defense was that she believed the vehicle was in reverse. The two versions of events were fundamentally different. One suggested an intentional act. The other suggested a terrible mistake. Investigators therefore had to consider whether the witnesses' observations supported one explanation more strongly than the other. The surveillance footage was also examined alongside those accounts. A witness might describe what they thought they saw, while the video could potentially provide an independent record of the SUV's movement.

Together, the evidence could help prosecutors establish a sequence of events. The argument, Hicks outside the SUV, Roman behind the wheel, the vehicle moving, the collision, and finally, the SUV coming to rest over Hicks. But even if investigators could establish exactly what happened physically, they still faced a more difficult question. What was Roman intending to do? In criminal cases involving an alleged intentional killing, the distinction between an accident and a deliberate act can be crucial.

A person can cause someone's death without intending to kill them. That does not automatically make the incident legally equivalent to an intentional murder. Prosecutors therefore had to present evidence supporting their allegation that Roman knowingly and intentionally acted against Hicks. During the preliminary hearing, Clark County District Attorney Cassandra Acosta argued that Roman knew what she was doing when she accelerated. The prosecution pointed to witness statements and surveillance evidence as support for that position.

The defense did not accept that interpretation. Roman's reported claim remained that she believed the SUV was in reverse rather than drive and that she never intended to kill Hicks. That explanation meant the case could not simply be reduced to the fact that an SUV had killed a man. The circumstances surrounding the vehicle's movement mattered. The argument mattered. Roman's state of mind mattered. And the evidence had to be examined carefully. There was also the devastating presence of the couple's four-year-old child.

The youngest child was reportedly inside the SUV during the incident. That meant the tragedy was not confined to the adults involved. The child was reportedly exposed to an event that would forever change the family. For the older children, there would be grief and unanswered questions. For the youngest, there would be memories and consequences that could last a lifetime. Meanwhile, investigators continued building the case that would eventually determine whether Roman would face trial for murder.

The evidence was becoming clearer, but the central question remained unresolved. Was Brian Hicks deliberately targeted by the woman who had spent nearly 20 years beside him? Or had a terrifying mistake turned an argument into an irreversible tragedy? Part 5 The Final Moments The most important part of the investigation was also the shortest. The moments immediately before Brian Hicks was struck. In a case like this, Seconds can become the difference between an accident and an intentional act. According to prosecutors, Andrea and Roman was behind the wheel of the newly purchased SUV while Hicks was outside the vehicle.

The couple had been involved in an argument and the confrontation had escalated. Then the SUV moved. Prosecutors alleged that Roman turned the vehicle toward Hicks and accelerated. The SUV struck him and the vehicle eventually came to rest over his body. For Hicks, those moments were fatal. Medical testimony later established that his head and neck became pinned beneath the SUV's tire, causing traumatic asphyxia. But prosecutors were not simply trying to prove that Roman's vehicle caused Hicks' death.

That fact was not enough by itself to establish murder. They had to argue that Roman's actions were intentional. This was where the surveillance footage and witness accounts became particularly important. The prosecution argued that the evidence showed Roman knew what she was doing when she accelerated toward Hicks. The defense presented a very different interpretation. Roman reportedly said that she believed the SUV was in reverse rather than drive. If she genuinely believed the vehicle was moving backward, then the fatal movement toward Hicks could have been an unintended mistake rather than a deliberate attempt to hit him.

That explanation raised another difficult question. How quickly did everything happen? A person sitting behind the wheel can make a decision in a fraction of a second. During a heated confrontation, Confusion and panic can make an already dangerous situation even more unpredictable. But prosecutors argued that the available evidence showed more than confusion. They believed Roman had deliberately directed the SUV toward Hicks. The competing accounts meant that the court would eventually have to consider not only what happened, but why it happened.

The aftermath of the collision was devastating. Hicks, a 40-year-old father, was dead. His eight children had lost their father. and the woman who had been his partner for approximately two decades was now facing an open murder charge. The youngest child, only four years old, was reportedly present inside the SUV. That detail added another layer to an already heartbreaking case. For investigators, however, sympathy could not replace evidence. They needed to reconstruct the incident as precisely as possible.

The surveillance footage had to be reviewed. Witness statements had to be compared. Medical evidence had to be examined, and Roman's explanation had to be considered against everything else investigators had uncovered. Every piece of evidence could potentially strengthen one side's version of events or raise questions about the other. Eventually, the investigation reached the courtroom. Prosecutors presented their evidence during a preliminary hearing, arguing that the case contained enough evidence to justify moving forward with the murder charge.

The defense continued to challenge the allegation that Roman intentionally killed Hicks. The issue was no longer simply what happened in the parking lot. It was whether the evidence was strong enough for a judge to allow a murder prosecution to proceed. And that decision would determine the next chapter of the case. Part 6. The Medical Evidence While investigators focused on the SUV and the events leading up to the collision, medical experts were left to determine exactly how Brian Hicks died. Their findings would become an important part of the case.

Hicks had been struck by the SUV, but the circumstances of his death were more specific than simply being hit by a vehicle. Medical testimony indicated that Hicks suffered traumatic asphyxia. His head and neck had become pinned beneath one of the SUV's tires, creating fatal pressure. The medical evidence helped establish the physical consequences of the incident, but it could not, by itself, answer the most important legal questions. could explain how Hicks died, could not determine why Roman drove the SUV toward him.

That distinction was critical. Prosecutors were building a case around the allegation that Roman intentionally accelerated toward Hicks. The defense, meanwhile, maintained that Roman had not intended to kill him and reportedly believed the SUV was in reverse. The medical evidence, therefore, became one part of a much larger picture. investigators had to connect the physical evidence to what witnesses reported seeing and what the surveillance footage appeared to show. The position of Hicks' body, the position of the SUV, and the injuries he suffered could all help investigators reconstruct the collision.

The prosecution's theory was that Roman deliberately used the SUV in a way that caused Hicks' death. The defense's position suggested something very different, that a mistake involving the vehicle's direction had produced a horrifying and unintended outcome. For the family, however, the distinction between those theories could not change the immediate reality. Brian Hicks was gone. He would never return home to his children. He would never again speak to the youngest child who was reportedly present during the incident.

And the family that had existed for approximately two decades had been permanently changed. The case also raised questions about the emotional circumstances surrounding the confrontation. Roman and Hicks had reportedly spent around 20 years together. They had raised eight children. Yet on October 18, 2025, their relationship ended in a parking lot with Hicks dead and Roman facing an open murder charge. Investigators therefore had to look beyond the final seconds. They needed to understand the circumstances surrounding the argument and determine whether anything before the collision could help explain what happened.

but prosecutors were focused on the evidence they believed demonstrated intent. During the preliminary hearing, Clark County District Attorney Cassandra Acosta argued that Roman knew what she was doing when she accelerated toward Hicks. Witness accounts and surveillance footage were presented as evidence supporting the prosecution's interpretation. Roman's reported explanation remained that she believed the SUV was in reverse. That meant the case was becoming a direct conflict between two interpretations of the same fatal event.

One interpretation described an intentional act. The other described a tragic mistake. And ultimately, the legal system would have to determine whether the evidence was sufficient to take the case forward to trial. For now, the medical evidence had established one undeniable fact. Brian Hicks died beneath the SUV. The question that remained was whether the person behind its will intentionally caused his death. Part 7. Two different stories. By the time the case reached the preliminary hearing, there were essentially two competing versions of what happened in the Olive Garden parking lot.

The prosecution had one explanation. The defense had another. And the difference between them came down to one crucial question. What did Andrea and Roman intend to do when the SUV began moving? Prosecutors alleged that Roman deliberately turned the vehicle toward Brian Hicks and accelerated. They argued that this was not an accidental movement and that Roman understood where the SUV was headed. Clark County District Attorney Cassandra Acosta pointed to witness accounts and surveillance footage as evidence supporting that interpretation.

According to the prosecution, the evidence showed that Roman knew exactly what she was doing, but Roman reportedly rejected that version of events. Her explanation was that she did not intend to kill Hicks. She reportedly believed the SUV was in reverse rather than drive. If that was true, the fatal movement of the vehicle could have resulted from a mistake rather than an intentional decision to strike Hicks. That distinction became the heart of the case. The prosecution was not simply arguing that Roman was responsible for the SUV being involved in Hicks' death.

They were arguing that her actions demonstrated an intention to harm him. The defense position challenged that conclusion. The question would eventually be left for the court to examine through the evidence. Surveillance footage could potentially show the direction of the SUV and how it moved. Witnesses could provide accounts of what they saw and heard. Medical evidence could establish the cause of death. And Roman's own explanation could be evaluated alongside all of those pieces. No single piece of evidence necessarily answered every question.

Instead, investigators and prosecutors had to assemble the entire sequence. Before the SUV moved, there had reportedly been an argument. Hicks was outside. Roman was inside the vehicle. Then the SUV moved toward him. Hicks was struck. The SUV came to rest over him. And Hicks suffered fatal injuries. The physical sequence was devastatingly clear. The uncertainty concerned the intention behind it. For the eight children, the legal distinction could feel almost impossible to comprehend. Their father was dead.

Their mother was accused of causing his death. And their youngest sibling, only four years old, was reportedly present when it happened. The family had spent years together. Now their future would be shaped by a criminal case. Roman faced an open murder charge with a deadly weapon enhancement. But a charge was not a conviction. the prosecution still had to prove its case beyond the required legal standard if the matter ultimately went to trial. At the preliminary hearing stage, however, the question was narrower.

The judge had to determine whether there was sufficient evidence for the murder charge to proceed. Prosecutors believed there was. The defense disputed the allegation of intentional killing. And as the hearing continued, the court was left to examine the evidence surrounding those critical moments in the parking lot. The case was no longer only about what happened to Brian Hicks. It was about determining which version of those final moments was supported by the evidence. Part 8 The Surveillance Footage One of the most important pieces of evidence in the case was surveillance footage from the area where Brian Hicks was killed.

For investigators, video could provide something that memories sometimes cannot. A visual record of the movements surrounding the incident. The footage became particularly important because the central dispute was not whether the SUV struck Hicks. It was how and why it happened. Prosecutors argued that the footage supported their claim that Andrea and Roman deliberately turned the SUV toward Hicks and accelerated. They pointed to the movement of the vehicle as evidence that Roman was aware of what she was doing.

The defense, however, maintained that Roman did not intend to kill Hicks and reportedly said she believed the SUV was in reverse. That meant the footage had to be examined. carefully. Investigators would have been interested in the position of the SUV before it moved, the direction in which it traveled, and the relationship between the vehicle and Hicks. Even a few seconds of video could become significant in a case where intent was being disputed. Witness testimony could describe what people believed they saw.

The footage could then be compared with those accounts. If a witness said the SUV moved in a particular direction, investigators could determine whether the video supported that statement. If the defense claimed the vehicle's movement was accidental, the footage could potentially become relevant to that explanation as well. The prosecution's interpretation was that Roman intentionally directed the SUV toward Hicks. During the preliminary hearing, District Attorney Cassandra Acosta argued that Roman knew what she was doing when she accelerated.

But the existence of surveillance footage did not automatically settle the question of intent. A camera can record movement, cannot necessarily record a person's thoughts. The court, therefore, had to consider the footage together with the other evidence. What did witnesses observe? What happened immediately before the SUV moved? Was there anything about the vehicle's movement that indicated deliberate action? Could Roman's explanation reasonably account for what the footage showed? Those questions became increasingly important.

Meanwhile, the human consequences remained impossible to ignore. Hicks was dead. His eight children had lost their father. And their mother was facing prosecution in connection with his death. The youngest child was reportedly only four years old and had allegedly been inside the SUV. For the family, the surveillance footage was not simply evidence in a courtroom. It represented the final moments of a family tragedy. For prosecutors, however, it was evidence that could help establish their theory of the crime.

For the defense, it was evidence that would have to be interpreted carefully rather than automatically treated as proof of intent. As the preliminary hearing continued, the judge was faced with a difficult question. Was there enough evidence to allow the murder charge against Roman to proceed? The answer would determine whether the case moved toward a full trial, where the competing explanations could be examined in much greater detail. And ultimately, that trial could place the entire sequence of events in the Olive Garden parking lot under a jury's scrutiny.

Part 9. The Four-Year-Old Witness Among the most heartbreaking details surrounding the case was the presence of the couple's youngest child. the child was only four years old. According to reports, the child was inside the SUV when the confrontation between Andrea and Roman and Brian Hicks turned deadly. That meant the youngest member of the family was reportedly present during the final moments of Hicks' life. For investigators, the child's presence was another important circumstance to document.

For the family, it was a devastating reality. Hicks was the father of eight children, and the youngest had barely begun childhood when tragedy struck. The other children ranged from 4 to 22 years old, meaning the impact of Hick's death would be experienced by children at very different stages of life. Some were young enough to need constant parental support. Others were old enough to understand exactly what had happened. And the oldest children were already adults who would now have to deal with the loss of their father while also watching their mother face a murder prosecution.

The case therefore involved more than a dispute between two adults. It involved an entire family. The prosecution's allegations suggested that the argument between Roman and Hicks escalated rapidly. The SUV became the instrument through which Hicks was fatally injured. Roman was behind the wheel, Hicks was outside, and their youngest child was reportedly inside. That detail made the prosecution's theory especially significant. Prosecutors argued that Roman knew what she was doing when she accelerated toward Hicks.

But Roman reportedly maintained that she did not intend to kill him and believed the SUV was in reverse. The question of intent remained unresolved. A four-year-old child could not provide the kind of detailed account that investigators might obtain from an adult witness. But the child's presence could still become relevant to understanding the circumstances surrounding the incident. Investigators would have to document what happened, when it happened, and what evidence existed independently of the child's experience.

The case would ultimately have to rest on admissible evidence rather than emotion. That was particularly important because the tragedy itself could make it easy for people outside the courtroom to reach conclusions. But the legal system required something different. It required evidence. Prosecutors had to support the murder allegation. The defense had the opportunity to challenge that evidence and present Roman's explanation. And a judge had to determine whether the evidence was sufficient for the case to continue.

Meanwhile, the family was left facing consequences that no courtroom ruling could completely erase. If Roman were eventually convicted, the children could lose both parents in different ways. If she were acquitted, Hicks would still be gone. Either way, the family had already suffered an irreversible loss. The Olive Garden parking lot had become the location where their family's story changed forever. And as prosecutors continued presenting their evidence, the focus returned to the same critical question.

When Roman accelerated the SUV toward Hicks, was it deliberate? Or did she truly believe the vehicle was moving in the opposite direction? That question would follow the case into the courtroom. Part 10, the preliminary hearing. The investigation eventually moved from the parking lot into the courtroom. Andrea and Roman was facing an open murder charge with a deadly weapon enhancement in connection with Brian Hicks' death. But before a case can proceed toward a full trial, there are important legal stages that must take place.

One of those stages was the preliminary hearing. The purpose was not to determine whether Roman was ultimately guilty or innocent. Instead, the court had to consider whether prosecutors had presented sufficient evidence for the criminal case to continue. For the prosecution, This was an opportunity to lay out the evidence they believed connected Roman to Hicks' death and supported the allegation that the killing was intentional. Clark County District Attorney Cassandra Acosta argued that Roman knew what she was doing when she accelerated toward Hicks.

Prosecutors pointed to witness accounts and surveillance footage. They argued that the evidence showed more than an accidental vehicle movement. According to their theory, Roman deliberately turned the SUV toward Hicks before accelerating. The defense challenged that interpretation. Roman reportedly maintained that she never intended to kill Hicks and believed the SUV was in reverse. That explanation became one of the most important issues for the court to consider. The prosecution had to establish enough evidence to move forward, but the defense did not have to prove Roman's innocence at the preliminary hearing.

Instead, the court examined whether the prosecution's evidence met the threshold required for the case to proceed. Witness testimony was considered. The surveillance evidence was examined. The circumstances surrounding the argument were discussed. And medical evidence established how Hicks died. Together, prosecutors argued that these pieces formed a sufficient basis for the murder charge. The defense continued to dispute the allegation of intentional killing. At the center of the disagreement was the SUV.

The same vehicle could be interpreted in two very different ways. According to prosecutors, it was deliberately directed at Hicks. According to Roman's reported account, its movement was the result of a mistake involving the vehicle's gear. Those competing explanations could eventually become central to a trial. But the preliminary hearing had a narrower purpose. The judge had to decide whether the prosecution had enough evidence to continue. For Hicks' family, the hearing was another painful reminder of what had happened.

The father of eight was gone. the children were left without him. And the mother of those children was now accused of causing his death. The case had transformed a family tragedy into a criminal proceeding. Every piece of evidence presented in court carried the weight of that loss. But the judge's decision could not be based solely on the emotional circumstances. It had to be based on the evidence and the legal standard governing the preliminary hearing. After considering the prosecution's case, the judge ultimately determined that sufficient evidence existed for the murder charge to proceed.

Roman would therefore continue facing the serious allegation as the case moved toward trial. But the ruling did not establish that she was guilty. That decision would ultimately belong to a jury if the case proceeded to trial. And the central question remained unanswered. Did Andrea and Roman intentionally drive the SUV into Brian Hicks? Or was his death the result of a catastrophic mistake? Part 11, the case moves forward. The judge's decision changed the next stage of Andrea and Roman's case. The murder charge would continue.

That meant the allegations surrounding Brian Hicks' death would now move beyond the preliminary hearing and toward a potential trial, where the evidence could be examined in greater detail. But the judge's ruling was not a finding of guilt. Roman remained accused of murder, and the burden of proving the charge would ultimately rest. with the prosecution. For the prosecution, however, the ruling represented an important step. They had argued that the evidence surrounding the October 18th incident was strong enough to support the case.

The prosecution's theory remained that Roman deliberately drove the SUV toward Hicks after their argument. They relied on witness accounts, surveillance footage, and the circumstances surrounding the collision. The deadly weapon enhancement also reflected the prosecution's allegation that the vehicle was used as the instrument of the alleged killing. For the defense, the central argument remained different. Roman reportedly maintained that she did not intend to kill Hicks. She claimed she mistakenly believed the SUV was in reverse rather than drive.

That explanation would continue to be significant because the difference between an intentional killing and an unintended death could have major legal consequences. The case therefore remained centered on Roman's state of mind at the moment the SUV moved. What did she believe was happening? What did she intend to do? Did she knowingly accelerate toward Hicks? Or did she mistakenly believe the vehicle was traveling in the opposite direction? Those questions could not be answered simply by establishing that Hicks had been struck.

The court needed to consider the circumstances surrounding the collision. The surveillance footage could help establish the vehicle's movements. Witness testimony could provide information about the argument and what happened immediately before and after the collision. Medical evidence could establish how Hicks died. And Roman's own explanation could be weighed against the other evidence. But there was another reality that no courtroom argument could change. Eight children had lost their father.

Their ages ranged from 4 to 22. The youngest child was reportedly inside the SUV when Hicks was killed. The older children would have to process the loss of their father while also watching their mother face a potentially life-changing criminal prosecution. The family that had spent approximately two decades together was now divided by tragedy and the legal system. For prosecutors, the goal was to prove what they believed happened. For the defense, the goal was to challenge that interpretation and establish that the death was not an intentional killing.

And for the court, the responsibility was to determine the case according to the evidence and the law. As the proceedings moved forward, the attention would increasingly turn toward the details of the October 18th confrontation. Every movement of the SUV could matter. Every witness statement could matter. Every detail about the argument could matter. because somewhere within those final moments was the answer to the question that had brought the case into court in the first place. Was Brian Hicks intentionally killed, or did a terrible mistake turn a family argument into a fatal tragedy?

Part 12, Reconstructing the Collision. As the case moved forward, investigators and prosecutors had to reconstruct the sequence of events with as much precision as possible. The incident itself lasted only moments. But those moments contained nearly every question that mattered. Roman was inside the SUV. Hicks was outside. The couple had reportedly been arguing. Then the SUV moved. The vehicle struck Hicks and eventually came to rest over him. What happened between those points became the subject of intense scrutiny.

Investigators could examine the surveillance footage repeatedly, looking at the SUV's position and direction of travel. They could compare what the cameras captured with statements from people who witnessed the confrontation. They could also consider the physical evidence and medical findings. The purpose was to establish a reliable timeline. Where was Hicks standing before the SUV moved? Where was Roman positioned? How did the SUV change direction? How quickly did it accelerate? And what happened immediately after Hicks was struck?

Each answer could affect the interpretation of the incident. Prosecutors believed the sequence supported their allegation that Roman intentionally drove toward Hicks. They argued that she knew what she was doing when she accelerated. Roman's reported explanation suggested that the same sequence could have occurred because she mistakenly believed the SUV was in reverse. That meant the direction of the vehicle was especially important. If Roman believed she was moving backward, she may have expected the SUV to travel away from Hicks rather than toward him.

but prosecutors argued that the evidence showed she deliberately directed the SUV at him. The disagreement was therefore not simply about the mechanics of the vehicle. It was about what Roman knew and intended. The medical evidence provided another piece of the reconstruction. Hicks suffered traumatic asphyxia after his head and neck became pinned beneath the SUV's tire. That established the devastating physical result of the collision. but it still did not answer the question of whether Roman intended to cause it.

That question would require the court to consider the entire body of evidence. The family circumstances also remained part of the story. Roman and Hicks had reportedly been together for approximately 20 years. They had eight children. The youngest was only four years old. Their relationship had existed for most of the children's lives. Now one parent was dead. while the other was facing a murder prosecution. For the children, the legal process could not undo what had happened. It could only determine responsibility under the law.

As the case continued, prosecutors would have to defend their interpretation of the evidence, while Roman's legal team would have the opportunity to challenge it. The eventual trial, if reached, would provide a much broader setting for those arguments. Witnesses could be questioned. Evidence could be challenged. the surveillance footage could be examined, and the jury would ultimately have to determine whether the prosecution proved the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt. But before that could happen, the investigation continued to focus on one critical question.

What exactly happened during those few seconds in the Olive Garden parking lot? The answer would determine whether the death of Brian Hicks was legally considered an intentional killing or a tragic accident. Part 13, the argument becomes evidence. As the case developed, the argument between Andrea and Roman and Brian Hicks became more than background information. It became part of the evidence prosecutors used to explain what happened in the Olive Garden parking lot. According to the prosecution's account, the couple were engaged in a heated confrontation shortly before Hicks was struck.

That raised an important question. What happened during the argument? The exact words exchanged between the couple could matter. The tone of the confrontation could matter, and anything that happened immediately before Roman entered or operated the SUV could potentially help investigators understand the circumstances. Prosecutors viewed the argument as part of an escalation that eventually ended with Hicks being run over. Their theory was that Roman deliberately turned the SUV toward Hicks and accelerated.

But an argument, by itself, does not establish an intention to kill. the defense could point to the confrontation differently. Roman's reported claim was that she did not intend to kill Hicks and mistakenly believed the SUV was in reverse. If that explanation were accepted, the argument could have been the setting for a tragic accident rather than a deliberate killing. That distinction was crucial. Investigators therefore had to look at what happened immediately before the vehicle moved. Witnesses who were nearby could potentially provide information about the couple's behavior.

Surveillance cameras could provide another perspective, and the physical evidence could help establish whether the movement of the SUV was consistent with the competing accounts. Prosecutors believed the evidence supported their interpretation. During the preliminary hearing, District Attorney Cassandra Acosta argued that Roman knew what she was doing when she accelerated toward Hicks. The prosecution's position was that the circumstances demonstrated deliberate action. In one version, a long-term partner intentionally used a vehicle against the father of her children.

In the other, an argument ended in a catastrophic mistake that neither parent could take back. The evidence would have to distinguish between those possibilities. Meanwhile, Hick's death continued to affect the eight children they shared, the children ranged from 4 to 22 years old. For the youngest, the tragedy happened at an age when understanding such a loss could be especially difficult. For the older children, the situation involved not only grieving their father but also watching their mother face a serious criminal charge.

The family had spent approximately two decades together. Now the parents' relationship had become the center of a criminal case. As prosecutors continued presenting their theory, the argument remained an important part of the timeline. But the central issue never changed. An argument could explain why the confrontation began, could provide context for the events that followed. But it could not, by itself, prove what Roman intended when the SUV moved. That would depend on the evidence surrounding those final seconds.

And as the case progressed, those seconds continued to hold the key to everything. Part 14 The Question of Intent By this stage of the case, the central issue was not... longer simply whether Andrea and Roman had been behind the wheel when Brian Hicks died. That fact was not seriously in dispute. The real question was what Roman intended when the SUV moved. Intent can be difficult to establish because it exists inside a person's mind. Investigators cannot simply look at a vehicle and determine what its driver was thinking.

Instead, prosecutors often rely on circumstances and behavior to argue what a person intended. In Roman's case, prosecutors pointed to the alleged direction of the SUV, the acceleration, witness accounts, and surveillance footage. Their argument was that these circumstances showed Roman deliberately drove toward Hicks. During the preliminary hearing, District Attorney Cassandra Acosta argued that Roman knew what she was doing when she accelerated. That interpretation directly conflicted with Roman's reported explanation.

She maintained that she did not mean to kill Hicks and believed the SUV was in reverse. If Roman genuinely believed the vehicle was traveling backward, the prosecution's theory of intentional action would become much harder to establish. But prosecutors argued that the evidence told a different story. This disagreement was at the heart of the murder charge. A fatal result alone did not answer the question. The court had to consider the circumstances surrounding the fatal movement of the SUV. What happened before the vehicle moved?

What did Roman do with the steering wheel? How did the SUV travel? What did witnesses observe? And what did the surveillance footage show? Each detail could contribute to the larger picture. The prosecution's burden would eventually be much higher at trial than at the preliminary hearing. At trial, if the case reached that stage, prosecutors would have to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense would have an opportunity to challenge the prosecution's evidence and present its own explanation of what happened.

But for now, the judge's role at the preliminary hearing was to determine whether enough evidence existed for the case to continue. The judge ultimately ruled that there was sufficient evidence for the murder charge to proceed. That decision did not determine Roman's ultimate guilt. It simply meant that the allegations had enough evidentiary support to move forward. For the Hicks family, the legal process represented only one part of their grief. Their father, partner, and family member was gone.

The eight children had to face a future without him. and the circumstances surrounding his death meant that the person accused of causing it was also their mother. The family was therefore caught between grief and a criminal prosecution. The case had begun with an argument. It had escalated in a parking lot, and it had ended with a 40-year-old father dead beneath an SUV. Now the courts would have to determine whether those tragic final moments represented an intentional killing or an accident. The evidence would ultimately have to speak for itself.

Part 15 The Defense As prosecutors continued building their case, the defense faced a difficult task. They had to challenge the allegation that Andrea and Roman intentionally killed Brian Hicks. Roman's reported explanation was straightforward but critically important. She did not mean to kill him and believe the SUV was in reverse rather than drive. That explanation placed the focus directly on the vehicle and Roman's understanding of its movement. If she genuinely believed the SUV was traveling backward, then the fatal collision could have been an unintended consequence of a terrible mistake.

But prosecutors disputed that interpretation. They argued that Roman deliberately turned the vehicle toward Hicks and accelerated. The defense, therefore, had to challenge the prosecution's interpretation of the surveillance footage and witness accounts. A witness might have seen the SUV move toward Hicks, but seeing the movement was different from knowing what Roman intended. Similarly, surveillance footage could show the vehicle's direction and speed, but it could not directly reveal what Roman believed was happening inside the vehicle.

That distinction was essential to the defense. The question was not simply whether Roman caused Hicks' death. It was whether she knowingly and intentionally did so. Roman and Hicks had reportedly been together for approximately 20 years. They shared eight children. There was a long history between them that could not be captured by a few seconds of surveillance footage. Yet prosecutors argued that whatever their history was, it did not explain away what happened in the parking lot. The prosecution maintained that Roman knew what she was doing when she accelerated.

The defense maintained that the death was not intentional. These competing arguments meant that the case could eventually depend heavily on credibility. Would a jury believe Roman's explanation? Would the surveillance footage support or contradict her account? Would the witness testimony establish intentional behavior? And would the physical evidence fit one version of events more convincingly than the other? Those questions would become even more important if the case reached a full trial. For now, however, Roman had already passed one major legal hurdle against her.

The judge had found sufficient evidence for the murder charge to proceed. That meant the case would not end at the preliminary hearing. The allegations would continue to be examined through the criminal justice system. Outside the courtroom, the consequences were already permanent. Brian Hicks could not return to his children. The four-year-old who was reportedly inside the SUV had lost a father. The older children had lost someone who had been part of their lives for years. And Roman was now facing the possibility of a lengthy criminal prosecution.

The case, therefore, had two very different dimensions. Inside the courtroom, lawyers debated evidence, intent, and legal standards. Outside it, a family was dealing with a loss that no verdict could reverse. The prosecution believed the evidence pointed toward an intentional killing. The defense maintained that Roman's actions were not intended to cause Hick's death. And as the case moved forward, the question of what Roman actually believed in those final seconds remained unresolved. Part 16, Eight Children Left Behind.

The criminal case centered on Andrea and Roman and Brian Hicks, but its consequences extended far beyond the two adults. They had eight children together. Their ages ranged from four to 22. For those children, October 18, 2025, was the day their family changed forever. Brian Hicks was no longer coming home. The circumstances surrounding his death made the loss even more difficult. According to prosecutors, he had been killed when Roman allegedly drove the SUV toward him during an argument. And according to reports, the couple's youngest child was inside the vehicle at the time.

That meant the youngest member of the family was reportedly present during the incident that took their father's life. The older children were also left facing a complicated reality. Their father was dead, while their mother was accused of causing his death. The criminal justice system would focus on evidence and legal responsibility. But for the children, the situation was personal. They had lost a parent, and their family structure had been shattered. Roman and Hicks had reportedly been together for approximately 20 years.

Their relationship had covered most of their children's lives. Whatever disagreements existed between them before the incident, neither could have known that an argument in a restaurant parking lot would become the event that permanently changed their family. But the criminal case could not be decided simply by considering the tragedy experienced by the children. The court still had to determine what the evidence showed. Prosecutors continued to argue that Roman intentionally drove toward Hicks.

The defense continued to maintain that she did not intend to kill him and believed the SUV was in reverse. The distinction remained critical. If prosecutors ultimately proved intentional conduct, Roman could face the consequences associated with a murder conviction. If the defense successfully established that Hicks' death resulted from a mistake rather than an intentional act, the legal outcome could be very different. But regardless of the eventual outcome, Hicks would remain dead. That was the one fact neither side could change.

His children would have to grow up with memories of him and with knowledge of the circumstances surrounding his death. The youngest child, who was reportedly only four years old, would face a future shaped by an event that happened before the child was old enough to fully understand its consequences. Meanwhile, the legal system continued moving forward. The preliminary hearing had already produced an important ruling. The judge determined that sufficient evidence existed for the murder charge to proceed.

But that ruling did not determine guilt. It simply allowed the prosecution to continue pursuing the case. The next stages would require the evidence to withstand further scrutiny. Surveillance footage could be examined again. Witnesses could be questioned. The circumstances surrounding the argument could be explored. And Roman's explanation could be tested against the prosecution's evidence. Every part of the case ultimately returned to the same moment. The SUV moved. Hicks was struck. His head and neck became pinned beneath the tire.

And a father of eight died. The question was whether that sequence was the result of deliberate action or a catastrophic mistake. For eight children, however... there was no uncertainty about the outcome. They had lost their father. Part 17 The Prosecution's Theory As the case continued, prosecutors remained focused on one central argument, that Andrea and Roman intentionally drove the SUV toward Brian Hicks. Their theory depended on the circumstances surrounding the vehicle's movement. According to prosecutors, Roman was involved in a heated argument with Hicks before getting behind the wheel.

They alleged that she then turned the SUV toward him and accelerated. To the prosecution, those actions were evidence of intent. Clark County District Attorney Cassandra Acosta argued during the preliminary hearing that Roman knew what she was doing when she accelerated. Witness accounts and surveillance footage were cited in support of the allegation. The prosecution's position was that the evidence showed Roman had control over the SUV and deliberately directed it toward Hicks. That was important because the vehicle was not merely involved in the incident.

It was allegedly the instrument through which Hicks was killed. The prosecution therefore sought to establish a connection between Roman's actions and the fatal injuries. Medical testimony had already established that Hicks died from traumatic asphyxia after his head and neck became pinned beneath the SUV's tire. The physical evidence confirmed the devastating result. But prosecutors still needed to establish the circumstances that led to it. Their argument was that the collision was not an unpredictable accident.

They believed Roman deliberately accelerated toward Hicks. The defense disagreed. Roman reportedly maintained that she never intended to kill Hicks and mistakenly believed the SUV was in reverse. That explanation directly challenged the prosecution's interpretation of the same evidence. If the defense's account were accepted, the incident could be understood as a tragic mistake rather than an intentional killing. The prosecution therefore had to persuade the court that the evidence supported its interpretation strongly enough for the case to proceed.

At the preliminary hearing, the judge ultimately found sufficient evidence to allow the murder charge to continue. But that decision was not the final word. It did not mean that the court had determined Roman was guilty. A preliminary hearing is not the same as a trial. If the case proceeded to trial, prosecutors would still have to prove their allegations beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense would have the opportunity to challenge the evidence and present Roman's account. And ultimately, a jury would have to decide what the evidence demonstrated.

For Hicks' family, the legal process could not bring him back. The father of eight had died at 40 years old. His youngest child was reportedly only four, and his longtime partner was now facing a murder prosecution connected to his death. The case had moved from a family argument to a criminal investigation and then into the courtroom, but the fundamental question had remained unchanged from the beginning. Was Roman's SUV deliberately used against Hicks? Or did she make a terrible mistake after believing the vehicle was in reverse?

The prosecution believed the evidence supported the first explanation. The defense maintained the second. And the eventual trial, if reached, would place those competing versions under the closest examination yet. Part 18 The Defense Fights Back While prosecutors presented the incident as an intentional killing, The defense continued to challenge that interpretation. At the center of the defense was Roman's reported explanation that she did not intend to kill Brian Hicks. She reportedly believed the SUV was in reverse rather than drive.

That claim was crucial because it offered an explanation for how the SUV could have moved toward Hicks without Roman intending to strike him. But accepting that explanation would require the court to look carefully at the surrounding evidence. The surveillance footage was important. So were the accounts from people who witnessed the confrontation. The defense could argue that none of those pieces of evidence could automatically reveal what Roman was thinking. A camera can show where a vehicle moved.

A witness can describe what they saw. Medical evidence can establish how a person died. But proving someone's precise intention requires the circumstances to be considered as a whole. Prosecutors argued that those circumstances pointed toward deliberate action. The defense argued that they could also be consistent with a tragic mistake. That disagreement made the case particularly difficult. There was no dispute that Hicks died after being struck by the SUV. There was no dispute that Roman was the person behind the wheel.

And there was no dispute that the couple had been involved in an argument. The disputed issue was what happened inside Roman's mind when the SUV began moving. Did she intentionally turn toward Hicks? Did she deliberately accelerate? Or did she believe she was moving the vehicle in the opposite direction? Those questions would remain central throughout the proceedings. The defense also faced the emotional weight of the case. Roman and Hicks had reportedly been together for around 20 years and shared eight children.

The death had therefore destroyed an entire family structure. The youngest child was reportedly inside the SUV during the incident. That fact could make the tragedy even more difficult to process. But the defense could not rely on the emotional circumstances alone. It had to challenge the prosecution's evidence and preserve Roman's claim that the death was unintended. Meanwhile, prosecutors remained convinced that the evidence justified the murder allegation. They had already succeeded in persuading the judge that sufficient evidence existed for the case to proceed.

That meant Roman would have to continue defending herself against the charge as the legal process moved forward. The preliminary hearing had therefore established an important reality. The case was not ending with an accident explanation, nor was it ending with a finding of guilt. Instead, both sides would continue preparing their arguments. The prosecution would seek to demonstrate intent. The defense would seek to establish reasonable doubt about that intent. And somewhere between those competing positions was the truth about what happened in that parking lot.

A father of eight had died. A mother faced a murder prosecution. And a four-year-old child was reportedly present when the tragedy unfolded. The courtroom would now have to determine what the evidence truly revealed about those final moments. Part 19, Waiting for Trial After the preliminary hearing, the case moved into a new phase. The judge had determined that there was sufficient evidence for the murder charge against Andrea and Roman to proceed, but the ruling did not answer the central question.

It simply meant that the case had passed an important legal threshold. Roman still faced the allegation that she intentionally killed Brian Hicks, and the prosecution still had the responsibility of proving that allegation in court. For the defense, the fight remained focused on Roman's explanation. She reportedly maintained that she did not mean to kill Hicks and believed the SUV was in reverse. That claim would have to be considered alongside the prosecution's evidence. The surveillance footage, the witness accounts, the medical evidence, and the circumstances surrounding the argument.

Each side had a different interpretation of those facts. Prosecutors believed they demonstrated deliberate action. The defense argued that they did not establish Roman's intent beyond a reasonable doubt. As the case moved forward, the events of October 18th continued to be examined. The location was an Olive Garden parking lot on East Craig Road in North Las Vegas. The vehicle was a newly purchased SUV. The confrontation involved a couple who had reportedly spent approximately two decades together, and the result was the death of a 40-year-old father of eight.

The tragedy was especially difficult because of the family's youngest member. The four-year-old child was reportedly inside the vehicle when the incident occurred. The child would now grow up with the consequences of losing a father under circumstances that were being examined in a murder case. The older children would also have to navigate an extraordinary situation. Their father was dead. Their mother was accused of killing him. And the legal process could take time. For prosecutors, the next stages would provide an opportunity to continue developing their case.

For the defense, they would provide opportunities to challenge the prosecution's interpretation of the evidence. The eventual trial, if the case proceeded that far, would be where the evidence would face its most extensive examination. Witnesses could testify, evidence could be challenged, the surveillance footage could be analyzed, and both sides could present their arguments to a jury. But until that process was complete, the allegations remained allegations. Roman had not been convicted of killing Hicks.

The judge's preliminary ruling meant only that there was sufficient evidence for the prosecution to move forward. That distinction was important, because the ultimate question remained unanswered. Was this an intentional killing? Or was Brian Hicks' death the result of a devastating mistake involving a vehicle Roman believed was moving in reverse? The answer would eventually have to come from the evidence presented at trial. Until then, the family was left waiting. Waiting for the next hearing. Waiting for the legal process.

And waiting for a determination of what truly happened during those final moments in the parking lot. Part 20, The Question That Remains. The story of Andrea and Roman and Brian Hicks ultimately comes down to a few critical moments on October 18, 2025. A long-time couple. A heated argument. a newly purchased SUV, a parking lot outside an Olive Garden in North Las Vegas. And then, suddenly, a father of eight was dead. According to prosecutors, Roman deliberately turned the SUV toward Hicks and accelerated.

They argued that she knew exactly what she was doing and pointed to witness accounts and surveillance footage as evidence supporting their case. Roman, however, has reportedly maintained that she never intended to kill Hicks. Her explanation was that she mistakenly believed the SUV was in reverse rather than drive. That difference in their accounts is the central issue that the criminal case must ultimately resolve. Medical testimony established that Hicks died from traumatic asphyxia after his head and neck became pinned beneath the SUV's tire.

His death was therefore not simply a minor collision or an injury that later became fatal. It was a devastating event that ended the life of a 40-year-old father. and the consequences extended immediately to eight children. The youngest was only four years old. That child was reportedly inside the SUV when the incident happened. The oldest was 22. Between them were six other children who would each have to process the loss of their father in their own way. Their parents had reportedly been together for approximately 20 years.

Now one parent was dead, while the other was facing an open murder charge with a deadly weapon enhancement. The judge's decision at the preliminary hearing allowed the murder charge to proceed. But that decision was not a conviction. Roman remained entitled to defend herself against the allegations, and the prosecution would ultimately have to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt if the matter reached trial. That is where the distinction between an intentional killing and a tragic accident becomes critical.

The prosecution believes the evidence points toward deliberate action. The defense maintains that Roman did not intend to kill Hicks. The evidence, including surveillance footage, witness accounts, and medical testimony, will have to be considered in determining which explanation is supported by the facts. For the Hicks children, however, there is one certainty that does not depend on a courtroom decision. Their father is gone. Whatever the eventual legal outcome, October 18, 2025, permanently changed their family.

A relationship that had lasted approximately two decades ended in tragedy. A father of eight lost his life. A mother became the defendant in a murder case. And a four-year-old child was reportedly present during the moment that changed everything. The courtroom may eventually determine whether Brian Hicks' death was an intentional act or a catastrophic mistake. But for the family left behind, the consequences of that day will continue long after the legal proceedings are over. And at the center of the case remains one unanswered question.

Did Andrea and Roman deliberately drive into Brian Hicks? Or did a terrible mistake turn an argument into an irreversible tragedy? Thank you for listening to this episode of Dark American Podcast. Every case has a story. Every victim has a life. And behind every headline are real people whose lives were changed forever. As we close this chapter, remember that the truth can sometimes take years to uncover. and some questions may never receive the answers we hope for. If you found this story interesting, please follow Dark American Podcast, leave a review, and share this episode with someone who might appreciate it.

Until the next story, stay safe, stay curious, and never stop seeking the truth. This is Dark American Podcast. Thanks for listening.

The Story