Remmick v. State, 2012 WY 57

Remmick was convicted on six counts of receiving stolen property and one count of conspiracy to commit larceny by a bailee stemming from her mother’s conduct (2002–2003) for Fox Park transactions.
Charges were filed Oct. 28, 2009, after the mother, Julie Jacobsen, had absconded.
Jacobsen managed two Fox Park bank accounts and a separate unauthorized account; checks from those accounts were issued with forged signatures.
Remmick received money from Jacobsen’s accounts, including checks drawn on Fox Park accounts and an unauthorized Fox Park district account.
Jacobsen pleaded guilty in the federal case and was later found guilty on related charges in Wyoming; Remmick’s prosecution followed after Jacobsen’s conviction.
Remmick moved to dismiss for prearrest delay; trial occurred Aug. 2010; she was convicted following a two-day trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was pre-charging delay a due process violation?	Remmick asserts intentional delay prejudiced defense by impairing Jacobsen’s testimony.	Remmick argues the delay caused actual prejudice and was tactical.	No due process violation; no showing of actual prejudice or intentional delay.
Was the evidence sufficient to support the verdict?	Remmick contends insufficient evidence of knowledge of illegality.	State provided circumstantial evidence of knowledge through misappropriation and related conduct.	Yes; evidence supported six counts of receiving stolen property and conspiracy.

Story v. State, 721 P.2d 1020 (Wyo. 1986) (preindictment delay may raise due process concerns if prejudice shown)
Vernier v. State, 909 P.2d 1344 (Wyo. 1996) (prejudice and intent required to uphold due process claim)
United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977) (preindictment delay due process considerations require prejudice and purposeful delay)
Marion v. United States, 404 U.S. 307 (1962) (considerations for due process and delay in indictment)
Phillips v. State, 835 P.2d 1062 (Wyo. 1992) (treatment of prejudice and delay in Wyoming prosecutions)
Russell v. State, 583 P.2d 690 (Wyo. 1978) (guilty knowledge may be shown by circumstantial evidence)
Tageant v. State, 673 P.2d 651 (Wyo. 1983) (circumstantial evidence sufficient for knowledge/intent)
Smith v. State, 902 P.2d 1271 (Wyo. 1995) (conspiracy requires no formal agreement; tacit understanding acceptable)
Martinez v. State, 943 P.2d 1178 (Wyo. 1997) (sufficiency of conspiracy evidence through course of conduct)