State of Missouri v. Destynie J. Wright, WD81345

Background

On Jan. 1, 2016, after a confrontation at a dance hall, Ramon Boyd shot and killed Sederick Jones and wounded Kierra Ramsey; Boyd was the shooter and Wright was present in the car with Ramsey. Text messages from Wright to Boyd were later recovered from Wright’s phone.
Wright drove away from the scene, did not call 911, and went to her sister’s house; detectives later interviewed Wright at her sister’s home and took her to the police station after she consented to go.
At the station Wright was not restrained, was told she was not a suspect, was offered breaks and water, and gave a recorded ~2-hour statement denying knowledge of the shooter and claiming she “blacked out.” She consented verbally to a phone search but refused to sign a written consent form pending lawyer review; detectives later retained the phone and obtained a warrant to search it.
During the interview detectives became more pointed and Wright requested an attorney near the end of the interview; she never changed her account and was not arrested until about two months later.
Wright was indicted on murder (accomplice theory), two counts of armed criminal action, assault, and tampering. She moved to suppress her recorded statement (arguing it was custodial and Mirandized), and later objected that verdict directors for involuntary manslaughter and assault were impermissibly disjunctive and could defeat jury unanimity.
The trial court denied the suppression motion and admitted the recorded statement; the jury convicted Wright on all counts. The Missouri Court of Appeals (W.D.) affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Wright)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether Wright’s recorded statement should be suppressed because it was obtained during a custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings	Wright: totality showed she was in custody (police took her phone, transported her to station, questioning became accusatory, and she requested counsel) so warnings were required	State: Wright voluntarily accompanied detectives, was told she was not under arrest, unrestrained, free to leave, and her request for counsel occurred in non-custodial interview	Court: Not custody under totality. Denial of suppression affirmed
Whether Wright’s request for counsel during the interview required cessation of questioning and suppression of statements after the request	Wright: request triggered Miranda protections and subsequent questioning violated right to counsel	State: Miranda/counsel protections apply only in custodial settings; no custody existed so detectives were not required to stop	Court: Request for counsel in non-custodial setting did not trigger Miranda; even if violation occurred, post-request statements were cumulative of earlier noncustodial statements and any error harmless
Whether verdict directors (Instructions No.11 & No.23) were improper because they used disjunctive language (“Boyd or Wright”) and thus could prevent a unanimous verdict	Wright: Disjunctive submission allowed jurors to convict without unanimous agreement on which actor had requisite mens rea, violating unanimity/right to due process	State: MAI-CR 3d 304.04 and accomplice-liability statutes permit disjunctive submission when evidence supports each alternative	Court: Not a multiple-acts case; single act could have been committed by either person, disjunctive MAI instruction proper, unanimity not violated
Whether any instructional error prejudiced Wright requiring reversal	Wright: cumulative instructional effect denied fair trial	State: Instructions conformed to MAI and evidence, no prejudice	Court: No instructional error or prejudice; Points Two and Three denied

Key Cases Cited

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (establishes Miranda warnings for custodial interrogation)
Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 (U.S. 1977) (voluntary stationhouse interview of a noncustodial suspect does not require Miranda warnings)
State v. Werner, 9 S.W.3d 590 (Mo. 2000) (factors for determining custody under totality of circumstances)
State v. Stricklin, 558 S.W.3d 54 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018) (interview can transform into custodial setting; distinguishing facts on counsel request timing and threats of arrest)
State v. Celis-Garcia, 344 S.W.3d 150 (Mo. banc 2011) (multiple-acts instruction error can violate unanimity unless jury required to agree on the same act)
State v. Brooks, 185 S.W.3d 265 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006) (Miranda suppression principles; lawfully obtained pre-custodial statements are not always tainted by subsequent custodial questioning)