Jordin v. State, 419 P.3d 527

In June 2016 Jordin and Reed went to Sinclair Golf Course; Reed entered the clubhouse and stole items while Jordin acted as a lookout in the car.
Manager Brian Creager discovered the break-in, confronted the men, struck Jordin with a flashlight after seeing suspicious activity, and then heard someone say "Shoot him, shoot him" followed by a gunshot and a muzzle flash.
The men fled in Jordin's car; Creager pursued, causing a crash; Reed fled on foot; Jordin was arrested two days later.
Jordin was charged with multiple conspiracies: aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, aggravated assault and battery, theft, and wrongful taking; the wrongful taking charge was dismissed at trial; the jury convicted on the remaining four conspiracy counts.
Central legal question: whether the State presented sufficient evidence that Jordin and Reed agreed to use a "deadly weapon" (the State argued the flashlight, a gun, or a baseball bat) during the crimes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Tanner requires the State to prove each alternative deadly-weapon theory when multiple weapons were argued	State: Tanner inapplicable; multiple theories are means to prove the same element, not alternative elements	Jordin: Tanner requires proof of each alternative weapon because State advanced three different weapons at trial	Court held Tanner does not apply; the jury decided one uniform element (use/agreement to use a deadly weapon) that could be proven by different means
Sufficiency of evidence that Jordin and Reed agreed to use a deadly weapon (specifically a gun)	State: circumstantial inferences (statements, muzzle flash, Jordin admitted firing, witness that Jordin habitually carried a gun) suffice to prove tacit agreement	Jordin: Reed denied knowledge of Jordin's weapon and denied saying "Shoot him," Creager didn’t identify the speaker—insufficient to prove agreement	Court held evidence was sufficient to allow jurors to infer a tacit agreement to use the gun and affirmed convictions

Tanner v. State, 57 P.3d 1242 (Wyo. 2002) (when jury is instructed on alternative statutory elements and the State does not elect, appellate court must find sufficient evidence for each alternative)
Daves v. State, 249 P.3d 250 (Wyo. 2011) (Tanner inapplicable where alternatives are merely different means to prove the same element)
Worley v. State, 386 P.3d 765 (Wyo. 2017) (disagreement among jurors about the means used does not require proving each means where the element itself is singular)
Ekholm v. State, 102 P.3d 201 (Wyo. 2004) (conspiracy may be proved by tacit understanding; direct evidence of agreement not required)
Thompson v. State, 408 P.3d 756 (Wyo. 2018) (standard of review for sufficiency: view evidence in the light most favorable to the State and draw all reasonable inferences for the State)