Mark Allen Isham was convicted of assaulting his intimate partner C.K., an amputee who called 911 reporting she was "a vulnerable adult trapped against [her] will" with "a black eye and a split lip." Officers arrived at Isham's home after midnight on March 24, 2023, where Isham initially denied C.K.'s presence but admitted her inside when officers heard her voice. During brief conversations totaling less than five minutes on his front doorstep, Isham confessed to hitting C.K. after drinking and arguing, leading to his arrest. C.K. required surgery for a jaw fracture and had her jaw wired shut for six weeks.
Circuit Judge Kelly, writing for the three-judge panel, found that Isham was not "in custody" during the questioning, noting that "neither officer used 'strong arm tactics' or deception, displayed a firearm, or physically restrained Isham as they spoke." The court emphasized that Isham "verbally agreed to step outside" with each officer and "showed no hesitation in answering their questions," distinguishing the case from custodial interrogation scenarios. Judge Kelly acknowledged that while officers arriving after midnight and isolating Isham were relevant factors, "considering them in context here, they do not render the setting custodial."
Isham had moved to suppress his incriminating statements and challenged the admission of evidence about prior assaults against C.K. under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). The district court denied the suppression motion and allowed testimony about previous incidents where Isham had assaulted the same victim. At trial, a jury found Isham not guilty of assault with a dangerous weapon but guilty of assault resulting in serious bodily injury and assault resulting in substantial bodily injury to an intimate partner.
The decision reinforces the Eighth Circuit's approach to custodial interrogation analysis, focusing on whether a reasonable person would feel free to terminate questioning rather than the formal setting alone. The ruling also demonstrates courts' willingness to admit prior bad acts evidence in domestic violence cases when defendants raise self-defense or intoxication claims, particularly when the evidence helps explain victim behavior like delayed reporting.