## Facts

- Robert Dale Kenyon and his fiancée, Kelly Crossfield, met James Sanchez in Cheyenne, Wyoming after traveling and running out of money.
- Sanchez let them stay in a trailer near his home, left his back door unlocked for bathroom access, and allowed Kenyon to use Sanchez’s pickup truck on several occasions for errands, job searches, and odd jobs.
- On September 28, 1997, Kenyon was stopped for speeding while driving Sanchez’s truck; the officer learned Kenyon’s license was suspended and brought Kenyon and Crossfield to Sanchez’s home to explain.
- Sanchez was upset and revoked Kenyon’s permission to use the truck.
- Kenyon and Crossfield later drove the truck from Wyoming to California; Sanchez reported it stolen.
- Kenyon was charged and tried for grand larceny in Wyoming; his defense was that he lacked intent to permanently deprive Sanchez because he believed he had permission based on Crossfield’s statements to him.
- The trial court excluded Kenyon’s testimony about Crossfield’s statements as hearsay and refused Kenyon’s requested instruction presenting his theory that an honest belief in consent negated the required intent.
- A jury convicted Kenyon of grand larceny, and he appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding Crossfield’s out-of-court statements offered to show their effect on Kenyon’s state of mind regarding consent and intent.
2. Whether the trial court committed reversible error by refusing a properly requested jury instruction on Kenyon’s theory of defense that his honest belief in permission negated intent to steal.

## Decision

- The Wyoming Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the excluded statements were not hearsay because they were offered to show their effect on Kenyon’s intent and conduct, not to prove Sanchez actually consented.
- The court found the evidentiary error prejudicial because the excluded testimony bore directly on the mens rea element (intent to permanently deprive) and there was a reasonable probability the verdict could have been different.
- The court indicated that if evidence at retrial supports Kenyon’s defense theory, the jury should receive an appropriate theory-of-defense instruction consistent with Wyoming law.

## Legal Principles

- An out-of-court statement is not hearsay when offered to show its effect on the listener’s state of mind or to explain subsequent conduct, rather than for the truth of the matter asserted.
- In a larceny prosecution, evidence bearing on whether the defendant intended to permanently deprive the owner is central to guilt and may not be excluded under an incorrect hearsay rationale.
- A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on a legally valid theory of defense when the theory is properly requested and supported by some evidence; instructions should permit the jury to consider whether the required criminal intent is absent.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a new trial because excluding statements offered to show Kenyon’s good-faith belief in permission improperly prevented the jury from considering evidence directly relevant to intent, and the jury should be instructed on a supported defense theory on retrial.


Kenyon v. State, 986 P.2d 849 (Wyo. 1999)