Danell Blevins v. State, 393 P.3d 1249

Defendant Danell Blevins, an LPN at a VA clinic, received $39,550 from 73‑year‑old veteran Richard Tefertiller between Jan 23, 2014 and Jan 2, 2015; $39,000 was characterized as a loan for nursing school but was largely spent for other purposes.
Tefertiller suffered from advanced age, PTSD, memory problems, falls, alcoholism, and mobility issues; daughters and medical records showed he required assistance with household tasks, appointments, medications, mail and bill‑paying.
Daughters discovered the payments, alerted authorities, and an investigation led to criminal charges.
A jury convicted Blevins of felony exploitation of a vulnerable adult under Wyo. Stat. §§ 6‑2‑507(a), (d); district court sentenced her to 1–4 years and ordered $39,000 restitution.
On appeal Blevins argued (1) insufficient evidence that Tefertiller was a "vulnerable adult," and (2) the jury instruction defined "exploitation" as "reckless or intentional," potentially misstating the mens rea for the felony charge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Blevins)	Held
Whether evidence sufficed to show victim was a "vulnerable adult" under § 35‑20‑102	The record (medical notes, daughters' testimony, living assistance, cognitive and alcohol issues) supports that Tefertiller was unable to manage himself or his assets without assistance.	Tefertiller’s independence (living alone, driving, articulate trial testimony) showed he was not unable to manage without assistance.	Affirmed: viewing evidence in State’s favor, jury could find he was a vulnerable adult due to advanced age and physical/mental impairments.
Whether jury instruction including both "reckless" and "intentional" in the definition of "exploitation" misstated law and prejudiced Blevins	The statute permits intentional or reckless conduct generally, but felony subsection should be read with an intentional mens rea; Instruction No. 17 properly required intent.	Inclusion of both mental states in Instruction No. 18 risked confusing the jury about the required mens rea for the felony.	No reversible error: court agreed Instruction No. 18 was confusing but Instruction No. 17 correctly required intentional conduct and the evidence established intent, so no prejudice.

Mraz v. State, 378 P.3d 280 (Wyo. 2016) (standard for sufficiency review and deference to jury)
Hill v. State, 371 P.3d 553 (Wyo. 2016) (sufficiency review principles)
Walker v. State, 302 P.3d 182 (Wyo. 2013) (purpose and test for jury instructions)
Christian v. State, 883 P.2d 376 (Wyo. 1994) (instructions must be read together; prejudice required to reverse)
State v. Stubbs, 555 N.W.2d 55 (Neb. Ct. App. 1996) (Nebraska case on nexus between impairment and exploitation; discussed but distinguished)