United States v. Verhonich

United States v. Verhonich · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · April 7, 2026 · No. 25-1407

Summary

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order upholding Bryce Tyrone Verhonich’s misdemeanor convictions and sentence arising from a fatal jet-ski accident in the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. The court held that failure to wear a personal flotation device and failure to attach an engine cut-off lanyard could be considered in determining negligent vessel operation under 36 C.F.R. § 3.8(b)(8), and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction. The court also rejected Verhonich’s evidentiary and sentencing challenges.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Ronald M. Gould; Jacqueline H. Nguyen; Mark J. Bennett
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decision date
April 7, 2026
Docket number
25-1407
Procedural posture
Verhonich appealed to the Ninth Circuit from the District of Nevada's order affirming his misdemeanor convictions and sentence entered following a bench trial before a magistrate judge.
Standard of review
Sufficiency of the evidence following a timely Rule 29 motion in a bench trial is reviewed de novo. Admission of other-crimes evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion, but unpreserved Rule 404(b) challenges are reviewed for plain error. Reliance on improper sentencing evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion, subject to plain-error review when the objection was not preserved. Substantive reasonableness of an unobjected-to sentence is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Precedential value
Published Ninth Circuit opinion; precedential.
Parties
Bryce Tyrone Verhonich v. United States of America
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

criminal procedureevidencestatutory interpretationsentencingappellate procedure

Practice areas

criminal procedureevidencestatutory interpretationsentencingnational parks

Questions Presented

  1. Whether failures to wear a life jacket and attach an engine cut-off lanyard may be considered in determining negligent operation under 36 C.F.R. § 3.8(b)(8).
  2. Whether sufficient evidence supported Verhonich's conviction for negligent operation of a vessel.
  3. Whether the magistrate judge improperly admitted two surveillance videos as propensity evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b).
  4. Whether the magistrate judge erred by considering state vehicular-manslaughter cases and personal experience at sentencing or by imposing a substantively unreasonable custodial sentence.

Holdings

  1. The failure to wear a life jacket and the failure to attach a safety lanyard may both be considered in determining whether a vessel was operated negligently under 36 C.F.R. § 3.8(b)(8).
  2. Sufficient evidence supported Verhonich's conviction for negligent operation under 36 C.F.R. § 3.8(b)(8).
  3. Verhonich's unpreserved challenge to the admission of the surveillance videos did not warrant relief under plain-error review.
  4. The magistrate judge did not err at sentencing and did not abuse his discretion by imposing a custodial sentence after considering the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Key quotations

Accordingly, we hold that the failure to wear a life jacket and the failure to attach a safety lanyard may both be considered in determining whether a vessel has been operated negligently pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 3.8(b)(8). (12)
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, a rational trier of fact could have found that Verhonich failed to exercise the degree of care which a reasonable person, under like circumstances, would have demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt, so sufficient evidence supports Verhonich’s conviction for negligent operation. (13)

Factual background

Verhonich drove a jet ski on Lake Mead with Lily Hatcher as a passenger during rough and windy conditions. Neither Verhonich nor Hatcher was wearing a life jacket, and evidence indicated that Verhonich did not attach the engine cut-off lanyard to himself; the lanyard remained attached to the jet ski after the accident while the engine was running. Verhonich and Hatcher fell from the jet ski after Verhonich made a sharp or careless turn, and Hatcher drowned.

Procedural history

Following a bench trial before a United States magistrate judge, Verhonich was convicted of negligent operation of a vessel, failure to wear a personal flotation device, and failure to attach an engine cut-off switch lanyard. The magistrate judge imposed six months' custody for Counts One and Two, to run concurrently, and two years of probation for Count Three. The district court affirmed the conviction and sentence on February 28, 2025, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…