Prosecutors said Wendy Coe was already seeking a killer before an undercover agent appeared, while her defense sought to challenge the sting.
CODY, Wyo. — For more than a year, one of the central legal questions in Wendy Coe’s criminal case was not simply what she told an undercover agent, but whether police had improperly drawn her into conduct she otherwise would not have committed. That question will not be decided by a jury after Coe pleaded no contest to a reduced felony.
Coe, 57, had been charged with soliciting first-degree murder after investigators said she discussed paying to have her daughter’s boyfriend killed in December 2023. Her defense later announced plans to raise entrapment, while prosecutors maintained that Coe’s alleged search for a killer began before law enforcement made contact. The case changed course in September 2026 when Coe pleaded no contest to attempted aggravated assault and battery. Under the agreement, prosecutors will not seek more than five to eight years in prison, and her defense may ask District Judge Bill Simpson to impose probation instead. Simpson ordered a presentence investigation before determining the sentence.
The prosecution’s answer to the entrapment claim rested heavily on how the investigation began. A concerned person reportedly told Cody police that Coe had been trying for roughly two weeks to find someone who would kill her daughter’s boyfriend. Deputy Park County Attorney Larry Eichele also alleged in court filings that Coe approached several people in pursuit of that goal. If accepted, that chronology supported the state’s position that Coe had formed the alleged criminal intent independently. For prosecutors, the undercover operation did not manufacture a plan; it put an investigator in front of someone who was already searching for a willing participant.
The defense sought to make police conduct part of the trial. In a 2025 filing, attorney Sam Krone gave notice that Coe intended to argue entrapment. Such a defense would have required close attention to the boundary between officers offering a suspect an opportunity to commit an offense and officers inducing criminal conduct that the person was not otherwise predisposed to undertake. Eichele responded that the record lacked the factual basis necessary for that defense. He wrote that the undercover agent “merely followed her lead,” and he asked the court to prevent the jury from receiving an entrapment instruction.
The recordings investigators cited supplied the state with its account of what happened after the tip. On Dec. 20, 2023, an agent from the Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation contacted Coe while pretending to be a hit man and arranged a meeting at her workplace. According to the evidentiary affidavit, Coe suggested moving to a rear area where cameras would not capture them. The agent wore a recording device, while other officers monitored. Investigators said Coe complained about her daughter’s boyfriend and accused him of being controlling, treating her daughter poorly and contributing to her drug use. Those claims about the boyfriend remained allegations attributed to Coe rather than independently established findings.
Investigators said the discussion became more specific as the meeting continued. The agent proposed $10,000 as a price for killing the man. Coe reportedly said that amount seemed fair but that she could not pay it then. The affidavit described discussion of making a death appear related to drugs, including the possibility of an overdose. When the undercover officer said he would prefer a shooting, Coe replied, “Works for me,” according to the affidavit. She allegedly discussed providing photographs and information about where the boyfriend lived and worked and what vehicle he used. Those details became part of the prosecution’s argument that the interaction reflected active participation rather than reluctant acquiescence.
But the investigation also produced a fact the defense could have emphasized at trial: Coe did not ultimately produce the money demanded by the undercover agent. On Dec. 21, investigators said, she told him she could not afford the $10,000 and might have funds only after the new year and a later raise. When he indicated that a lower price might be possible, she declined and said there was “too much risk involved.” Police arrested her that day. No killing or attack followed the conversations. The state’s case therefore centered on solicitation and intent rather than a completed act of violence against the boyfriend.
Before the entrapment fight could reach a jury, the case encountered another legal issue: whether Coe was mentally competent to stand trial. The proceedings included an evaluation at the Wyoming State Hospital. A stipulated order filed in May 2025 concluded that she could understand the nature of the criminal process, rationally assist in her defense and cooperate with her lawyer. Simpson later scheduled the case to proceed. The competency decision was procedural, not a finding about guilt, innocence or criminal responsibility, but it removed an obstacle that had delayed a trial on the solicitation charge.
Coe had already spent about seven months in jail following her December 2023 arrest before posting a $50,000 surety bond, according to local reporting. She also waived her speedy-trial right in April 2024. Those developments meant that by the time the plea was entered in September 2026, the prosecution had been pending for nearly three years. During that period, the parties moved from the initial accusation to competency litigation, an attempted entrapment defense and, ultimately, negotiation over a lesser charge. The plea avoided the uncertainty of a trial for both sides while significantly reducing the possible punishment Coe faced compared with the original charge.
By pleading no contest, Coe did not make the same formal admission of guilt that accompanies a guilty plea. The court can nonetheless enter a conviction and sentence her on the reduced offense. The arrangement also means that the public record will not contain a jury’s resolution of the competing narratives surrounding the sting. Jurors will not be asked whether police simply documented a plan Coe had already formed or whether the agent’s role improperly shaped the conduct that became the basis of the prosecution. Instead, the focus has shifted from criminal liability on the original accusation to punishment for the offense resolved by the plea.
The presentence investigation ordered by Simpson is intended to provide broader information about Coe before punishment is imposed, including details about her background, work history, education, family circumstances and criminal record. Prosecutors remain bound by their agreement not to seek a sentence exceeding the stated five-to-eight-year range, while the defense may urge Simpson to allow Coe to remain in the community on probation. The judge will weigh those arguments and the report when imposing sentence.
What the plea does not resolve is the dispute that had emerged over the undercover investigation itself. Coe’s lawyers had sought to present an entrapment defense, while prosecutors argued that she was looking for someone to carry out the killing before the state agent approached her. Because the case will not reach a jury on the original charge, that conflict will remain undecided as the proceeding moves to sentencing.
Author note: Last updated November 8, 2026.