Investigators connected Jordan Hanson to Justin Esparza’s death through statements, evidence inside his home and a witness who reported seeing the shooting.
HALLOCK, Minn. — The investigation into Justin Esparza’s killing began away from the crime scene, when a woman arrived at her mother’s home with his dog and allegedly said she had shot him. It ended 16 months later with a guilty plea and a 15-year prison sentence.
Jordan Carol Hanson, 24, pleaded guilty May 28 to second-degree felony murder and was sentenced July 8 to 180 months in prison. Authorities said she killed 43-year-old Esparza with his handgun at his Hallock home on March 13, 2025, then left in his truck with his dog. Although Hanson’s disjointed comments during her arrest drew public attention, the prosecution was built from a wider set of evidence: family reports, the condition of the residence, a firearm and casing, a witness who said he saw the shooting and Hanson’s own admissions.
The first alert came from Hanson’s family. According to the probable cause account reported by news organizations, Hanson’s mother called police after Hanson arrived at her home with Esparza’s dog and said she had shot him. Hanson spoke briefly with officers by telephone but said she did not want to have the conversation that way and preferred to talk in person. Authorities believed she sounded as though she was under the influence. Her mother said Hanson had recently been picked up from a treatment center.
While officers were speaking with Hanson and her mother, Hanson’s sister made a separate 911 call requesting a welfare check at Esparza’s home. That second call sent authorities to the location where the reported victim was believed to be. The two family contacts served different purposes: one placed Hanson with the dog and relayed her reported admission, while the other directed officers to the residence. Together, they gave police an immediate reason to investigate both locations rather than treating Hanson’s comments as an isolated or unreliable statement.
At Esparza’s home, officers found him dead in the living room with a gunshot wound to his head. Investigators reported that a Smith & Wesson 9 mm handgun was on the couch near him and that a spent casing was on the floor. The scene established that a shooting had occurred and provided evidence that could be examined and compared with witness statements. Public reports do not detail the results of any fingerprint, DNA, firearm or toxicology testing, and the guilty plea later made a public trial presentation of such evidence unnecessary.
Police also interviewed a man who said he was inside the home with Hanson and Esparza. The witness reported that the three had smoked methamphetamine and that he saw Hanson shoot Esparza. His statement supplied a claimed firsthand account of the fatal act and supported the sequence Hanson’s mother had relayed. The witness’s presence also gave investigators a person who could describe events before and during the shooting, although the full interview and any challenges to his reliability were not aired before a jury.
Hanson was taken into custody at her mother’s home by Chief Deputy Dave Thompson. During the arrest, police said she spoke in a way that did not make sense. She told Thompson that he had lost weight and asked what sugar beets were still doing on the ground. When asked whether she knew why she was being arrested, she reportedly said it was because she had shot Thompson and that she was sorry. Thompson had not been shot. The comments appeared to reinforce officers’ belief that Hanson was impaired or confused. The reported remarks were relevant to Hanson’s condition but did not, by themselves, explain the shooting or establish a legal defense. A person’s intoxication, confusion or unusual speech can raise questions about intent, memory and the reliability of statements, but those questions must be evaluated against the charged offense and the available evidence. Hanson ultimately chose to plead guilty to second-degree felony murder. By doing so, she accepted criminal responsibility under the terms of the plea rather than requiring prosecutors to prove the case at trial.
The Minnesota Attorney General’s Office said Hanson used Esparza’s handgun and fled with his truck and dog. The official sentencing announcement did not identify a motive, describe an argument or say what felony served as the basis for the felony-murder plea. It also did not release a complete factual basis stated in court. As a result, the public record explains how investigators linked Hanson to the killing more clearly than it explains why the shooting happened.
The case was handled through cooperation among local and state agencies. The Kittson County Sheriff’s Department, Hallock Police Department and Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension investigated. Kittson County Attorney Robert Albrecht referred the prosecution to the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office under a state law that permits the attorney general to take part in selected criminal cases upon a county attorney’s request. The attorney general’s office otherwise has limited authority over most local crimes because criminal prosecution generally rests with city and county attorneys.
That arrangement placed state prosecutors in charge of presenting the case while local investigators remained central to the evidence collection. Attorney General Keith Ellison credited Albrecht’s office, local law enforcement and the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension after the sentence was imposed. He said Hanson was going to prison for her role in the violent crime that took Esparza’s life and expressed hope that the sentence would provide some measure of justice to Esparza’s relatives and loved ones.
Before the guilty plea, the evidence would have presented prosecutors with several issues to organize for a jury. They would have had to establish the sequence inside the home, connect Hanson to the handgun, explain the witness’s account and address her condition when she spoke with family members and police. The defense would have been able to test the witness’s memory and credibility, question how methamphetamine use affected the people present and examine whether Hanson’s statements were voluntary and reliable. The plea ended that adversarial process before it unfolded publicly.
It also meant no jury was asked to interpret Hanson’s remarks about Thompson or sugar beets. Those comments became prominent in news coverage because they were unusual, but unusual statements are not a substitute for evidence of the charged crime. The core facts accepted in the guilty plea were more direct: Hanson was in Esparza’s home, used his handgun to shoot and kill him, and left the scene with his vehicle and dog. The sentence followed the legal admission, not the strangeness of her comments during arrest.
Esparza’s relatives had been asking questions since the days after his death. His cousin Nick Esparza told Valley News Live that he found it troubling that Hanson had reportedly been picked up from treatment and brought to the home shortly before the shooting. The available reports do not answer who transported her, what occurred after she arrived or whether anyone recognized a danger before the gun was fired. Those uncertainties were significant to the family even if prosecutors had enough evidence to obtain a conviction.
The investigation also left some property-related details outside the main public record. Officials said Hanson fled with Esparza’s truck and dog, but the sentencing announcement did not say where the vehicle was recovered or what happened to the animal afterward. Those facts were secondary to the homicide charge and may not have been necessary to explain the conviction. Still, they formed part of the initial trail that connected Hanson’s arrival at her mother’s home to the scene officers found at Esparza’s residence.
Hanson’s 180-month sentence closes the evidentiary phase of the case without a trial. She is now in the custody of Minnesota’s corrections system under the judgment entered by the Kittson County court. No additional prosecution connected to Esparza’s death has been publicly announced. For investigators, the case moved from a family member’s alarming call to a conviction supported by the facts Hanson ultimately admitted in court.
Author note: Last updated August 5, 2026.