Christopher Gore v. The State of Wyoming, 450 P.3d 1251

Homeowners Brigitte and Mark McClintock contracted Christopher Gore to renovate their townhouse; they agreed Gore would use materials they had purchased as an offset to his $28,000 contract (contract payable in advance).
Gore, who was not a licensed general contractor, later demanded more money, barred the owners from the site, and the city issued a cease‑and‑desist after code violations were found.
The night the work was ordered stopped, the McClintocks’ materials were observed on site; the next day many items were gone.
Investigation showed Gore removed the materials and returned the McClintocks’ items to a retailer in two transactions five minutes apart on December 15, 2016, totaling over $1,000.
Following a bench trial the district court convicted Gore of felony theft (value ≥ $1,000), imposed probation, restitution, and a fine; Gore appealed challenging intent and aggregation of values.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence that Gore intentionally stole the property	State: Gore knowingly took and converted the McClintocks’ materials without authorization; his conduct (removal and retail returns) permits inference of intent to deprive	Gore: He reasonably believed ownership passed on contract execution and acted in good faith, so lacked intent to deprive	Court: Affirmed. Evidence and reasonable inferences support finding Gore knew the items belonged to McClintocks and purposely deprived them.
Whether an explicit finding of a "common scheme" was required to aggregate value	State: Aggregation proper because the removals/returns were part of the same transaction/scheme; the bench judge’s findings and judgment referencing the aggregation statute suffice	Gore: Court erred by failing to make an explicit factual finding of a common scheme (Brown requires jury instruction)	Court: Affirmed. In a bench trial the judge is presumed to know/apply law; the record and judgment show the necessary finding and aggregation was proper.

Mathewson v. State, 431 P.3d 1121 (Wyo. 2018) (standard of review for sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims on appeal)
Toth v. State, 353 P.3d 696 (Wyo. 2015) (larcenous intent may be inferred from circumstantial evidence, conduct, and absence of explanatory circumstances)
Brown v. State, 44 P.3d 97 (Wyo. 2002) (aggregation requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that takings were pursuant to a common scheme; failure to instruct jury is reversible error)
Cohen v. State, 191 P.3d 956 (Wyo. 2008) (where trial court makes no specific factual findings, appellate court will uphold general ruling if supported by any reasonable view of the evidence)
Walker v. Casto, 372 P.2d 438 (Colo. 1962) (trial judges are presumed to know and apply the law)