## Facts

- Scott Robin Roston and his wife, Karen Roston, were on their honeymoon aboard the cruise ship *Stardancer* when Karen went overboard and drowned on the last night of the cruise.
- Multiple witnesses observed tension between the couple during the trip, including an argument on deck shortly before Roston reported Karen missing.
- Roston gave inconsistent accounts of the incident, first stating Karen was blown overboard and later stating she fell and he could not grab her.
- The rail height (about 3'6") relative to Karen’s height (about 5'3") was used to dispute an accidental fall.
- The government presented forensic evidence consistent with manual strangulation before the fall into the water, including hemorrhaging in the neck and eyes and other physical findings.
- Additional physical evidence on the deck suggested a struggle, including material on the clothing consistent with forceful contact with the jogging track, and hair and earring pieces found on deck.
- A jury in federal district court convicted Roston of second-degree murder.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Roston committed second-degree murder (malice aforethought) rather than an accident or lesser offense.
2. Whether the district court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter as a lesser-included offense based on heat of passion/adequate provocation.
3. Whether admitting Roston’s statement to the ship’s doctor was reversible error on constitutional or evidentiary grounds.
4. Whether denying Roston’s pretrial motion to substitute counsel violated his right to counsel or was an abuse of discretion.
5. Whether the district court lawfully and adequately justified an upward departure from the Sentencing Guidelines.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the conviction for second-degree murder.
- The court held the evidence, including forensic and circumstantial proof and Roston’s inconsistent statements, was sufficient for a rational jury to find malice and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The court held the district court did not err in refusing a voluntary manslaughter instruction because the record lacked sufficient evidence of legally adequate provocation to place heat of passion at issue.
- The court found no reversible error in admitting Roston’s statement to the ship’s doctor.
- The court held the denial of substitution of counsel was not an abuse of discretion under the governing factors (timeliness, adequacy of inquiry, and degree of conflict).
- The court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing because the upward departure was not adequately supported under the Guidelines framework.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence is sufficient if, viewing it in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt; circumstantial and forensic evidence can satisfy this standard in homicide cases.
- A defendant is entitled to a voluntary manslaughter (heat-of-passion) instruction only when there is sufficient evidence of adequate provocation such that a reasonable jury could find the killing occurred in heat of passion.
- Statements made in a medical or noncustodial context are not automatically excluded; admission is reviewed for reversible constitutional or evidentiary error.
- Denial of substitution of counsel is reviewed for abuse of discretion, considering timeliness, the trial court’s inquiry, and whether attorney-client conflict was so severe as to impede representation.
- Upward departures from the Sentencing Guidelines require legally permissible grounds and adequate findings supporting both the decision to depart and the extent of departure.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Roston’s second-degree murder conviction based on substantial circumstantial and forensic evidence, rejected claimed trial errors regarding jury instructions, a medical-context statement, and counsel substitution, but vacated the sentence because the upward Guidelines departure was insufficiently justified and required resentencing.


United States v. Roston, 986 F.2d 1287 (9th Cir. 1993)