State v. Wright
| Citation | 585 S.W.3d 360 |
| Decision Date | 16 July 2019 |
| Docket Number | WD 81345 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Destynie J. WRIGHT, Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
Shaun Mackelprang, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Jonathan D. Bailey, Kansas City, MO, for appellant.
Before Special Division: Cynthia L. Martin, Presiding Judge, Alok Ahuja, Judge and Thomas N. Chapman, Judge
Destynie J. Wright ("Wright") appeals her convictions of one count of involuntary manslaughter in the first degree, one count of assault in the second degree, two counts of armed criminal action, and one count of tampering with physical evidence. Wright argues that the trial court erred by denying a motion to suppress and admitting her recorded statement at trial because the statement was made during a custodial interrogation where Wright had not been informed of her Miranda1 rights. Wright further argues the trial court erred because the verdict directors for the charges of involuntary manslaughter and assault submitted elements in the disjunctive, depriving her of unanimous jury verdicts. Finding no error, we affirm.
On December 31, 2015, Wright drove herself and her friend Kierra Ramsey ("Ramsey") to a New Year's Eve party at a dance hall in Kansas City. In the early hours of January 1, 2016, Ramsey's ex-boyfriend, Sederick Jones ("Jones"), arrived at the party, intent on encouraging Ramsey to leave with him. Jones followed Wright and Ramsey into the women's restroom, blocking their exit until a member of the cleaning crew forced them to leave the building. Outside, Jones continued pressing Ramsey to leave with him, and was arguing with Wright. Wright and Ramsey tried to leave in Wright's car, but Jones got into the backseat. Jones continued to argue with Wright and Ramsey for about an hour. During that time, Wright was using her cell phone to text her boyfriend, Ramon Boyd ("Boyd"), in relevant part as follows:
Shortly after this exchange, Jones and Ramsey exited Wright's vehicle. Boyd shot Jones four times, killing Jones. Ramsey was shot twice. Gunfire shattered a window on Wright's vehicle.
Wright fled the scene in her car. Boyd called Wright moments after the shooting, but Wright did not initiate any calls, including to 911. Wright drove to her sister's house, and parked the car. Boyd met her there. The two retreated to Boyd's home, where Wright stayed until she returned to her sister's house the next morning.
The next morning, Kansas City Police Detectives Jeremy Wells ("Wells") and Darin Penrod ("Penrod"), were looking for Wright as they knew she had been a witness to the shooting. They were contacted by Wright's sister, who told them that Wright was now at her house. Wells and Penrod arrived at Wright's sister's house, and were invited inside. Wright was sitting on a couch in the living room. Wells and Penrod asked Wright if she would be willing to go to the police station to provide a statement. Wright agreed to do so. As Wright was leaving, Wright's sister asked if she wanted her cell phone. Wright responded that she "did not need her phone." Penrod said "I can take it." Wright's sister handed Penrod the phone. Wright did not object.
Wright rode with Penrod and Wells to the police station in an unmarked police car. She was not restrained in any way. Wright was taken to an interview room. She was offered water and the opportunity to use the restroom. At the beginning of the interview, Wright verbally consented to the Detectives' request to search her cell phone for any information that might be helpful to the investigation.
Wright then provided a statement. Wright explained that she and Ramsey had gone out for the evening; that Ramsey and Jones had been arguing on the phone earlier in the evening; that Jones showed up unexpectedly at the dance hall and began harassing them; and that Jones entered the backseat of her car as she and Ramsey were attempting to leave. Wright told the Detectives that Jones was flashing a gun, and that when Ramsey finally agreed to leave with Jones, she heard gunshots as they exited Wright's car. Wright described seeing Jones and Ramsey fall to the ground, but said she had no idea who shot them. Wright told the Detectives she "blacked out," and fled the scene out of fear. Wright made no mention of Boyd or of his involvement in the shooting. Wright first told the Detectives that she drove away from the scene without checking on the victims, went walking, and eventually sat outside until morning before resetting her phone around 6:00 a.m. Later in the interview, Wright said that she drove to her sister's house after leaving the scene, parked her car, and then walked with no particular destination before ending up at an unknown driveway where she sat and waited for several hours before returning to her sister's house the next morning. Wright confirmed that she was still in her dress from the night before, though she had changed into more comfortable shoes before getting out of her car. During this portion of Wright's statement, the Detectives were cordial, though they pressed Wright about why she had not contacted the police or summoned help for Ramsey, whom Wright described as her best friend.
The Detectives then asked Wright to sign a written form verifying her consent to search her cell phone. Wright again told the Detectives she had been required to hard reset her phone the night before because it had gotten too cold while she was out walking. Wright asked if she could have a lawyer review the consent form. Wright was advised that she did not have to sign the form if she did not want to. Wright did not sign the consent form.
Wells and Penrod took a break from the interview, leaving Wright alone in the unlocked interview room. When they returned, their questioning of Wright remained cordial, but became more aggressive. Penrod challenged the implausibility of Wright's statement, and told Wright that he believed she was covering for someone. They told Wright a preliminary statement had already been taken from Ramsey which called into question the truthfulness of Wright's statement. They impressed upon Wright the importance of telling the truth. They told Wright that it appeared possible that whoever shot Jones may have been acting in justifiable defense of Ramsey, and suggested that Wright's refusal to tell them all she knew was thus difficult to understand. Though the Detectives' questioning of Wright became more pressing and pointed, the Detectives' demeanor remained cordial and respectful. Wright's statement never wavered.
When Penrod continued to press Wright to tell the truth, Wright requested an attorney:
Penrod and Wells continued questioning Wright for a short time after her request for an attorney. Wright never altered anything about the statement she had already given.
In total, Wright's interview lasted about two hours. When the interview concluded, Wright was not arrested, and was taken back to her sister's house. The Detectives told Wright at the end of her interview that they would be retaining her cell phone and securing a warrant to search its contents. As a result of that search warrant, the texts exchanged with Boyd prior to the shooting were discovered.
Several months later, Wright was indicted on a theory of accomplice liability for murder in the first degree; two counts of armed criminal action; assault in the first degree; and tampering with physical evidence in a felony prosecution. Wright was not arrested in connection with the shooting until approximately two months after her January 1, 2016 interview. Prior to trial, Wright filed a motion to suppress the entirety of her recorded statement ("Motion to Suppress"), claiming she had been subject to a custodial interrogation without having been Mirandized.4 Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion. At trial, Wright's recorded statement was admitted over Wright's objection.
Wright also objected to Instruction No. 11 and Instruction No. 23, the verdict directors respectively for involuntary manslaughter in the first degree, and assault in the second degree. Both verdict directors submitted Wright's culpability on a theory of accomplice liability by requiring that the jury find either "Boyd or Wright" engaged in the conduct described in the verdict director. Wright complained that this disjunctive submission violated her rights to due process and a fair trial.
The jury convicted Wright on all counts. This timely appeal follows.
Wright raises three points on appeal. In her first point, Wright argues that the trial court erred when it denied her Motion to Suppress and admitted her recorded statement at trial because the statement was the result of a custodial interrogation where Wright had not been Mirandized. In her second and third points, Wright argues that Instructions No. 11 and 23 misled the jury and deprived her of due process and a fair trial because they asked the jury to determine, in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Boyd
...omitted). We thus conclude that Mr. Boyd did not have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in any text messages contained in Ms. Wright ’s phone. Ms. Wright’s phone was not one of his personal effects; it was the property of a third party. It necessarily follows that, having no ......
-
State v. Reuter
...by a preponderance of evidence that [a] motion to suppress should be denied and the evidence should be admitted.’ " State v. Wright , 585 S.W.3d 360, 367 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019) (quoting State v. Brooks , 185 S.W.3d 265, 272 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006) ). "[A] trial court's ruling on a motion to supp......
-
State v. Proctor
...to show by a preponderance of evidence that a motion to suppress should be denied and the evidence should be admitted." State v. Wright, 585 S.W.3d 360, 367 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019) (internal quotations and citation omitted). An order suppressing evidence requires substantial evidence in suppor......
-
State v. Vandervort
...210, 214 (Mo. App. 2015) (citation omitted). We will reverse the ruling on a motion to suppress only if it is clearly erroneous. Wright, 585 S.W.3d at 367 (citation omitted). After a review of the entire record, the circuit court's ruling is clearly erroneous if we are left with a definite ......