Bahati Magambo, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Bahati Magambo appeals his two convictions for Level 1 felony child molesting, arguing that the trial court committed fundamental error in admitting a video of his police interrogation. Finding no error, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Magambo moved to Texas from Malawi in 2021. In January 2023, he moved to Indiana and met Michael Mugoovi, a pastor at his church. Magambo lived with Mugoovi and his family for several months while looking for his own housing. He also enrolled as a student at Ivy Tech Community College. While Swahili is Magambo's first language, the Mugoovis spoke both English and Swahili at home, and Magambo spoke to them in English.

[3] In May 2023, Mugoovi's nine-year-old daughter, R.M., disclosed that Magambo had molested her multiple times while living with the family. The first time, Magambo went into R.M.’s room and took off her skirt and underwear. R.M. was lying on her back on her bed, Magambo was standing at the end of the bed with his pants pulled down, and “his private part went into [her] vagina.” Tr. Vol. 2 p. 167. Magambo stopped because R.M.’s mother was coming to her room. Another time, Magambo asked R.M. for a pencil, and when R.M. brought the pencil to his room, he locked the door behind her. Magambo told R.M. to get on the bed, took off her clothes, and “touch[ed]” her “vagina” with “his tongue.” Id. at 170. The third time, R.M. went to Magambo's room to ask if he had any dirty clothes to put in the laundry. Magambo “shoved [R.M.] onto the bed” and took off her clothes, and “[h]is tongue was on [her] vagina.” Id. at 173.

[4] After R.M.’s disclosure, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (IMPD) officers brought Magambo in for questioning. IMPD Detective Alisha Bernhardt conducted the interrogation, which was videotaped. At the start, she confirmed that Magambo “could speak English well and understand English well,” and Magambo said, “Mm-hmm. Yes,” while nodding his head. Ex. 7 at 4:06-4:09. Detective Bernhardt told Magambo she was going to “go over” some “rights” and asked if he'd ever heard of “Miranda rights” or “advice of rights.” Id. at 4:14. Magambo shook his head and said no. Before reading Magambo his rights, Detective Bernhardt asked once more if he understands English, and he again nodded and said, “Mm-hmm.” Id. at 4:40. Detective Bernhardt showed Magambo the advice-of-rights form and told him that she was going to read it and to stop her if he had any questions. Magambo responded, “Mm-hmm. Yes ma'am.” Id. at 4:40. Detective Bernhardt read Magambo his rights from the form and then asked if he understood. He nodded and said, “Mm-hmm.” Id. at 5:20. Detective Bernhardt asked if he had any questions, and he shook his head and said, “No. I don't have any questions.” Id. at 5:22. Then, Detective Bernhardt read the waiver statement on the form. Once she finished reading, she said, “[I]f so, you would just sign right there” and showed Magambo where to sign. Id. at 5:49. As Magambo picked up the pen to sign, Detective Bernhardt asked, “You understood all that, right?” Id. at 5:53. Magambo nodded, said “Mm-hmm,” and signed the form. Id. at 5:55.

[5] At first, Magambo denied that anything happened with R.M. Detective Bernhardt said that R.M. had “already told the truth” about “what [he] did to her,” so she wanted to give Magambo the opportunity “to be honest about that.” Id. at 20:04. Detective Bernhardt asked Magambo if he'd ever touched R.M.’s vagina. Magambo said, “Not exactly,” and explained that “maybe” his “mouth went on her vagina” by mistake while they were playing on his bed. Id. at 20:51-23:35. Magambo initially denied putting his penis into R.M.’s vagina, but he later admitted that his “penis went partway in her vagina,” but then his “conscience come [sic] to” him and he “realized it was a mistake,” so he stopped. Id. at 33:48-34:42.

[6] The State charged Magambo with three counts of Level 1 felony child molesting. Magambo used a Swahili interpreter throughout the proceedings. At the jury trial, R.M., then 11, testified as detailed above. By the time of trial, Detective Bernhardt was no longer with IMPD due to medical retirement, so her supervisor, Sergeant Kevin Kinder, testified. Sergeant Kinder had reviewed Detective Bernhardt's case file and the video of her interrogation of Magambo. The State offered the interrogation video into evidence, and Magambo objected on confrontation grounds because Detective Bernhardt wasn't available for cross-examination. The court overruled Magambo's objection, and the State played the video for the jury.

[7] The jury found Magambo guilty of two counts of Level 1 felony child molesting and not guilty of one count. The trial court sentenced Magambo to concurrent terms of 25 years.

[8] Magambo now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[9] Magambo contends that his statements to Detective Bernhardt were inadmissible because they “were the product of a custodial interrogation at which he had not knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights not to self-incriminate.” Appellant's Br. p. 13. As Magambo acknowledges, he did not object on this ground at trial and therefore must establish fundamental error on appeal. See Konopasek v. State, 946 N.E.2d 23, 27 (Ind. 2011) (“[A] defendant may not argue one ground for an objection to the admission of evidence at trial and then raise new grounds on appeal.”).

[10] Fundamental error is an “extremely narrow” exception to the general rule that a party's failure to object at trial results in a waiver of the issue on appeal. Durden v. State, 99 N.E.3d 645, 652 (Ind. 2018). “An error is fundamental, and thus reviewable on appeal, if it made a fair trial impossible or constituted a clearly blatant violation of basic and elementary principles of due process presenting an undeniable and substantial potential for harm.” Id. (quotation omitted). This exception “encompasses only errors so blatant that the trial judge should have acted independently to correct the situation.” Id.

[11] Magambo argues that the trial court committed fundamental error in admitting the video of his interrogation because he didn't knowingly and voluntarily waive his Miranda rights.¹ “A waiver of one's Miranda rights occurs when the defendant, after being advised of those rights and acknowledging that he understands them, proceeds to make a statement without taking advantage of those rights.” Ringo v. State, 736 N.E.2d 1209, 1211-12 (Ind. 2000). The voluntariness of a waiver of rights is judged by the totality of the circumstances. Id. at 1212. Our focus is on whether the waiver was free, voluntary, and not induced by violence, threats, promises, or other improper influences. Strickland v. State, 119 N.E.3d 140, 148 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied.

[12] Magambo claims his waiver of his Miranda rights wasn't voluntary because he was advised of his rights in English, which isn't his first language. He challenges the voluntariness of his waiver under both the United States and Indiana Constitutions. If a defendant challenges the voluntariness of the waiver of his Miranda rights under the United States Constitution, the State must prove voluntariness by a preponderance of the evidence. Pruitt v. State, 834 N.E.2d 90, 114 (Ind. 2005). “However, the Indiana Constitution requires the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant voluntarily waived his rights ․” Id. (quotation omitted).

[13] Because Magambo didn't raise these challenges below, the trial court had no occasion to determine whether the State proved—either by a preponderance of the evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt—that Magambo voluntarily waived his Miranda rights. But based on the totality of the circumstances here, we find that, had Magambo made a voluntariness objection in the trial court, the State could have met either burden.

[14] Although there is no evidence in the record of when Magambo learned English, he has lived in the United States since 2021. After moving to Indiana in January 2023, he attended Ivy Tech Community College. R.M. testified that Magambo spoke to her and her siblings in English at home. At the start of the interrogation, Detective Bernhardt asked Magambo in English his first name, last name, birthdate, age, address, and phone number, all of which he provided without hesitation. She then said, “And I know when I talked to you earlier, you said that you could speak English well and understand English well,” and Magambo replied, “Mm-hmm. Yes.” while nodding his head. Ex. 7 at 4:06-4:09. Before reading Magambo his rights, Detective Bernhardt again asked if he understands English, and Magambo said he does. Although Magambo wasn't familiar with “Miranda rights” or “advice of rights,” after Detective Bernhardt read him the advice-of-rights form, he confirmed that he understood it and said he “d[id]n't have any questions.” Similarly, after Detective Bernhardt read the waiver statement on the form, Magambo confirmed that he understood it and signed the form. See Ringo, 736 N.E.2d at 1212 (“A signed waiver form is one item of evidence showing the accused was aware of and understood his rights.”); Hoskins v. State, 563 N.E.2d 571, 577-78 (Ind. 1990) (finding voluntary waiver of rights where interrogating officer “ascertained that appellant understands the English language and can read and write, then read appellant his rights and asked if he understood them,” and appellant said yes and signed a waiver of rights form). By contrast, at various points during the interrogation when Magambo appeared to have difficulty understanding what Detective Bernhardt was saying, he asked clarifying questions or asked her to repeat herself. Although there were a few points when Magambo seemingly didn't understand a particular word Detective Bernhardt used or struggled to find the English word for what he wanted to say, overall, he answered questions promptly and was able to provide narrative responses in English. The totality of the circumstances shows that Magambo sufficiently spoke and understood English such that his Miranda waiver was voluntary.

[15] Magambo repeatedly highlights that Detective Bernhardt didn't read him his rights in Swahili or offer a Swahili interpreter, claiming that her “failure to ask Magambo whether he would be more comfortable proceeding in Swahili is unjustifiable.” Appellant's Br. p. 17. But Magambo never gave Detective Bernhardt any reason to know he spoke Swahili. He twice confirmed that he speaks and understands English. At trial, defense counsel asked Sergeant Kinder if he'd “agree that English is not [Magambo's] first language.” Tr. Vol. 3 p. 15. Sergeant Kinder said he'd “never heard him speak any other language,” but he'd “assume that ․ it's not” and acknowledged that Magambo's accent is “not an accent you would find in America.” Id. Even if Detective Bernhardt had similarly garnered that English is not Magambo's first language, she had no way of knowing that his first language is Swahili as opposed to any other language. Although Magambo has an accent and struggled with certain English words during the interrogation, he never told Detective Bernhardt where he is from or what his native language is. Given Magambo's confirmation that he speaks and understands English, there would have been no reason for her to offer a Swahili translation or interpreter.

[16] Because the totality of the circumstances establishes that Magambo voluntarily waived his Miranda rights, the trial court did not err—much less commit fundamental error—in admitting the video of the interrogation.

[17] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Throughout their briefs, the parties cite to case law on both the voluntariness of a waiver of rights and the voluntariness of a confession. To the extent that Magambo is also challenging the voluntariness of his statements during the interrogation, the only basis he gives for such a challenge is that he didn't understand that he was waiving his rights before he made the statements. See Appellant's Br. pp. 13, 17-18, 19. Thus, we address only the voluntariness of Magambo's Miranda waiver. And in any event, the voluntariness of a confession and the voluntariness of a waiver of rights are determined using the same totality-of-the-circumstances test. See Ringo v. State, 736 N.E.2d 1209, 1212 (Ind. 2000).

Vaidik, Judge.

Bailey, J., and Scheele, J., concur.