Court: Man not ‘in custody’ when he admitted assault

Listen to this article

In Brief:

• 8th Circuit ruled the defendant was not “in custody” when he admitted assault to police.
• Court affirmed denial of the motion to suppress statements under Miranda.
• Defendant was convicted of federal assault charges involving serious bodily injury.
• Judges found no coercion, restraint, or police domination during questioning.

A Bois Forte man was convicted of abusing his intimate partner but moved to suppress statements admitting the abuse to police. Affirming the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded April 1 that those statements were not made while the man was “in custody.”

Mark Allen Isham was convicted of repeatedly assaulting an intimate partner, C.K., who is an amputee. The two had an on-and-off relationship for several years and occasionally lived together.

In March 2023, C.K. called Isham to pick her up from a treatment facility, intending to stay with him briefly at his residence within the Bois Forte Band of Chippewa Indian Reservation before entering a halfway house. After the two drank, they began to argue, and Isham became verbally and physically aggressive. He hit C.K. in the face and head. The violence escalated when, a few days later, Isham repeatedly punched C.K. He allegedly kept C.K. confined inside the residence for days and prevented her from accessing her wheelchair.

However, C.K. was able to contact 911 while Isham was outside cutting firewood. Officer Danielle Boettcher of the Bois Forte Police Department and Deputy Sean Norland of the St. Louis County Sheriff’s Office responded to the residence.

Isham answered and told them C.K. was not inside the home. Moments later, a woman’s voice from inside asked who was at the door. Isham admitted that C.K. was present.

The officers entered and found C.K. lying in bed without her prosthetic. They also observed visible injuries including a black eye, a split lip, and bruising on her arms, legs and head. She was transported by ambulance to a hospital, where she later underwent surgery for a broken jaw.

While Officer Boettcher spoke with C.K., Deputy Norland asked Isham to step outside. Isham told Norland that C.K. was welcome to stay because she had nowhere else to go. He denied that they had argued or that any physical altercation had occurred, and stated that she called 911 because her phone was not working. A couple minutes later, Boettcher asked Isham to come outside with her. During that conversation, Isham admitted that after drinking and arguing, he had hit C.K.

Isham faced several charges: (1) assault with a dangerous weapon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(3); (2) assault resulting in serious bodily injury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(6); and (3) assault resulting in substantial bodily injury to a spouse or intimate partner, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(7). He was found guilty on Counts 2 and 3.

At trial before District Judge Katherine Menendez, Isham attempted to suppress the statements that were made to the officers before his arrest, but the court denied the motions. Isham appealed, claiming that he was “in custody” when those statements were made, and that he was not advised of his Miranda rights.

However, the 8th Circuit, reviewing the circumstances of Isham’s brief discussions with the officers, did not find that Isham was in custody when he made the statements. “Neither officer used ‘strong arm tactics’ or deception, displayed a firearm, or physically restrained Isham as they spoke,” Judge Jane Kelly noted.

“Isham verbally agreed to step outside with Norland and with Boettcher,” Kelly observed. “Isham showed no hesitation in answering their questions.”

Additionally, the court rejected Isham’s argument that the setting was custodial.

“Isham’s home was small, and the officers’ close proximity to Isham and C.K. was a consequence of spatial limitations, not police dominance,” Kelly wrote.