A man accused of brutally beating and disfiguring his ex-girlfriend is asking a court to invalidate the evidence in a separate property destruction case against him, saying a lower-court judge unlawfully interrogated him during a protection order hearing.
Conversely, the case prosecutor, Goshen County Attorney Eric Boyer, argued in a Friday court filing that the judge’s questioning was not an interrogation under the law’s definitions.
Andrew Atkinson was already facing charges stemming from an earlier alleged crime spree in 2016 involving burglary and strangulation. He’s also accused of what court documents describe as a brutal Aug. 3, 2024, aggravated assault on his ex-girlfriend that left her hospitalized with body-wide bruises and cuts, a collapsed lung and facial disfigurement.
The Goshen County Attorney’s Office charged him Nov. 5 in a new case with one count of property destruction.
The charge was based entirely on things Atkinson said in an Aug. 26 protection order hearing brought by the woman he’s accused of hospitalizing.
Torrington Circuit Court Judge Nathaniel Hibben was trying to learn what happened to the woman’s guns, two laptop computers, cellphone and iPad. He ordered Atkinson to return the woman’s things to her, court documents say.
Atkinson said he no longer had them.
Hibben asked what had happened to the woman’s property, and Atkinson said he threw them in a canal, the evidentiary affidavit from the property destruction case says. Later, Atkinson pivoted and said he’d thrown the things in the trash, the document adds.
After Goshen County Sheriff Kory Fleenor documented that dialogue, Atkinson was charged with felony property destruction, which is punishable by up to 10 years in prison and $10,000 in fines.
Miranda
In a Dec. 19 motion, Atkinson’s attorney Joe Bustos asked Goshen County District Court Judge Edward Buchanan, who is now overseeing the case at the felony-level court, to dismiss Atkinson’s alleged court confession from the evidence pool.
That confession is the only evidence listed in the case affidavit, so the case would likely fall apart without it.
Bustos included statute references for the definitions of judge, police agency and police officer. He pointed to the requirement that, if investigators want to interrogate someone who’s not free to leave, the investigators must first read that defendant his Miranda rights and get a clear statement from him that he’s willing to talk rather than confer with a lawyer or stay silent.
“A judge is not a peace officer and not a member of a law enforcement unit,” says Bustos’ motion on Atkinson’s behalf. “A judge does not have the authority to investigate suspected criminal activity.”
Since he was in the jail’s custody during that protection order hearing, Atkinson was not free to leave, Bustos noted.
Bustos argued that Hibben should have advised Atkinson of his Miranda rights before posing such questions.
Prosecutor Says Nope
Boyer filed a terse response Friday.
It summarizes the case and Bustos’ argument briefly, then concludes in blunt terms that Bustos is wrong, and Hibben didn’t interrogate Atkinson.
“In this case, the statements the defendant made did not stem from a custodial interrogation of the defendant,” wrote Boyer. “And thus Miranda and its progeny do not apply to limit the use of statements by a party opponent in this criminal context.”
Boyer declined to elaborate in a Monday phone interview.
The attorneys are scheduled to argue further at a Jan. 29 hearing in Buchanan’s court.
Hibben declined Monday to comment, citing judicial ethics.
Clair McFarland can be reached at clair@cowboystatedaily.com.
