The Hanson Sufficiency Standard: Unobjected Hearsay and Circumstantial Evidence as Proof of “Without Authority” in Burglary & Theft Cases

Introduction

Andrew Michael Hanson appealed his burglary and felony-theft convictions, arguing the State failed to present sufficient evidence that he acted “without authority,” an element common to both offenses under Wyoming law. The crux of his challenge was the State’s reliance on circumstantial proof and on testimony that arguably repeated out-of-court statements by the property owner (i.e., potential hearsay). The Wyoming Supreme Court, however, affirmed, thereby sharpening two doctrinal lines:

First, that circumstantial evidence alone can satisfy the “without authority” element when it reasonably supports that inference.
Second, that evidence admitted without objection— including hearsay— is treated as substantive evidence for sufficiency review.

The decision, rendered by Chief Justice Boomgaarden for a unanimous bench, therefore articulates what may be dubbed the Hanson Sufficiency Standard, clarifying prosecutorial and defense duties in future Wyoming criminal trials.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court reframed the single appellate issue: whether the State produced sufficient evidence for a rational jury to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Hanson lacked authority to enter Swagger Construction’s premises and to assume control of its property. Applying the familiar sufficiency-of-the-evidence test, the Court:

Accepted as true all State evidence and every reasonable inference in the State’s favor.
Disregarded evidence favorable to the defendant.

Under that lens, the Court concluded that multiple data points—secured building entered at night through a window, missing items, the inscription “Claim Ins,” possession of stolen property, distinctive footwear tying Hanson to video footage, and unobjected owner statements denying permission—were more than enough for the jury to infer “without authority.” The convictions and sentences (two-to-four years suspended for probation) were therefore affirmed.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

Munoz v. State, 2024 WY 103 – Restated the standard that appellate courts assume the truth of State’s evidence and every favorable inference.
Hultberg v. State, 2024 WY 59 – Quoted for the same sufficiency standard.
Whitmore v. State, 2024 WY 81 – Affirmed parity of direct and circumstantial evidence.
Stroble v. State, 2020 WY 158; Brumme v. State, 2018 WY 115 – Earlier authorities stating that every element may be proven by circumstantial evidence.
Berry v. State, 2023 WY 75; Beane v. State, 596 P.2d 325 (1979) – Additional support for circumstantial-evidence doctrine.
Neidlinger v. State, 2021 WY 39; Morones v. State, 2020 WY 85; and Gonzalez-Chavarria v. State, 2019 WY 100 – Emphasis on examining “evidence presented to the jury.”
Hicks v. State, 2021 WY 2 – Stated that unobjected evidence can be used for any legitimate purpose.

Collectively, these cases supplied the doctrinal scaffolding: (1) sufficiency review is deferential; (2) circumstantial evidence is legally equal to direct; (3) absence of contemporaneous objection permits the trier of fact—and later the appellate court—to treat the evidence substantively.

B. Legal Reasoning

Circumstantial Proof of “Without Authority.”
The Court highlighted nighttime entry through a window, the furtive conduct on video, and Hanson’s possession of stolen items as classic consciousness-of-guilt indicators that logically imply lack of permission. The inscription “Claim Ins” further suggested an attempt to generate an insurance event, reinforcing wrongful intent.
Unobjected Hearsay as Substantive Evidence.
Statements by the owner, relayed by the detective, were not challenged at trial. Under Hicks and Neidlinger, the jury could—and did—rely on them. For sufficiency review, the Supreme Court likewise considered those statements valid proof of lack of authority. The opinion thus cements a practical rule: failure to object contemporaneously transforms even classically hearsay statements into material the appellate court must respect in a sufficiency analysis.
“Direct vs. Circumstantial” Irrelevance.
Citing Whitmore and earlier authorities, the Court reiterated that Wyoming long ago abandoned any hierarchy between direct and circumstantial evidence. Hanson’s argument that the State “only” offered circumstantial proof therefore fell flat.

C. Potential Impact

Trial Strategy: Defense counsel must object promptly to hearsay or move for a limiting instruction. Silence will render such evidence fully available on appeal.
Prosecutorial Flexibility: The State can confidently rely on circumstantial evidence of “without authority,” reducing dependence on unavailable property owners.
Judicial Efficiency: By clarifying sufficiency parameters, the decision may deter meritless appeals premised on the direct–circumstantial distinction.
Doctrinal Clarity: The ruling harmonizes Wyoming precedent with the majority of U.S. jurisdictions that treat unobjected evidence as substantively available for appellate sufficiency review.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Sufficiency of the Evidence.
Appellate inquiry into whether any rational jury could have found each element proved beyond a reasonable doubt, viewing the record most favorably to the prosecution.
Circumstantial Evidence.
Indirect proof from which a fact may be inferred (e.g., fingerprints, possession of stolen goods). Legally equivalent to eyewitness testimony.
Hearsay.
An out-of-court statement offered for its truth. Normally inadmissible unless an exception applies. But if no objection is lodged, the statement is treated as though it were properly admitted.
Element “Without Authority.”
For burglary/theft, the State must show the accused lacked permission to enter or to exercise control over property. Direct proof (owner testimony) is ideal but not required; conduct and surrounding circumstances can suffice.

Conclusion

Hanson v. State (2025 WY 80) does not revolutionize Wyoming criminal procedure, but it distills two pivotal propositions into an unmistakable holding:

The State may satisfy the “without authority” element solely through reasonable circumstantial inferences.
Any evidence admitted without defense objection—hearsay included—forms part of the substantive record for both jury deliberations and appellate sufficiency review.

Henceforth, Wyoming litigants must calibrate their trial strategies to these axioms. For prosecutors, circumstantial mosaics coupled with vigilant evidentiary presentation remain sufficient. For defense counsel, timely objections are no longer merely advisable; they are imperative. In the broader scheme, The Hanson Sufficiency Standard will likely resonate across future burglary and theft prosecutions and may spill over into other contexts where “authority” is an element, such as trespass, computer crimes, and financial exploitation.