Zechariah Jay Jones v. State, 2016 WY 110

In August 2014 Zachariah Jones shot Zachary Albrecht in the upper left abdomen; Albrecht survived after two surgeries. Jones was arrested and charged with attempted second-degree murder and aggravated assault and battery (with a deadly weapon).
The Information alleged Jones was an habitual criminal; he conceded two prior felonies and the habitual enhancement was applied to the assault sentence. The weapon was not recovered.
A jury convicted Jones of both attempted second-degree murder and aggravated assault and battery. The district court imposed consecutive sentences: 40–50 years for attempted murder and 15–50 years for aggravated assault.
On appeal Jones raised two constitutional challenges: (1) that cumulative punishment for both convictions violated double jeopardy (multiple punishments for the same offense), and (2) that if the two crimes share the same elements they are unconstitutionally vague.
The court analyzed legislative intent under the Blockburger “same elements” test as articulated in Sweets v. State and assessed vagueness claims under Wyoming precedent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether punishing attempted second-degree murder and aggravated assault (§ 6-2-502(a)(ii)) cumulatively violates double jeopardy	Jones: both statutes amount to the same offense because any means to kill necessarily involves a "deadly weapon," so cumulative punishment is barred	State: statutes have different elements (attempted murder requires malice; § 6-2-502(a)(ii) requires use of a deadly weapon), so cumulative punishment is permitted under Blockburger/Sweets	Affirmed: convictions/sentences may be cumulative—each crime contains an element the other does not (malice vs. deadly weapon)
Whether the statutes are unconstitutionally vague (facial or as-applied)	Jones: if the elements overlap, statute(s) are vague and fail to give fair notice or allow arbitrary enforcement	State: statutes give adequate notice (definitions of "deadly weapon" and "bodily injury"), and conviction here was not arbitrary or discriminatory	Rejected: statutes are not vague on their face or as applied; a person of ordinary intelligence would understand the prohibitions

Sweets v. State, 307 P.3d 860 (Wyo. 2013) (adopting/clarifying use of Blockburger same-elements test post–same-evidence disavowal)
Burnett v. State, 267 P.3d 1083 (Wyo. 2011) (distinguishing aggravated assault with a deadly weapon from attempted second-degree murder because the weapon element differs)
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (same-elements test for determining whether offenses are the same for double jeopardy)
Bowlsby v. State, 302 P.3d 913 (Wyo. 2013) (double jeopardy principles regarding retrying or punishing twice)
Bloomfield v. State, 234 P.3d 366 (Wyo. 2010) (definition/requirements for attempt tied to intent and substantial step)
Guilford v. State, 362 P.3d 1015 (Wyo. 2015) (standard for reviewing vagueness challenges and presumption of constitutionality)
Jones v. State, 256 P.3d 536 (Wyo. 2011) (distinguishing facial and as-applied vagueness challenges)
Teniente v. State, 169 P.3d 512 (Wyo. 2007) (standards for vagueness and enforcement arguments)
Starrett v. State, 286 P.3d 1033 (Wyo. 2012) (courts will not substitute policy judgments for legislative choices)
DiFelici v. City of Lander, 312 P.3d 816 (Wyo. 2013) (presumption that legislature acts rationally)
Wilkerson v. State, 336 P.3d 1188 (Wyo. 2014) (discussion of malice as an element for second-degree murder)