State v. Wright
2012 Mo. LEXIS 272
| Mo. | 2012Background
- Wright was convicted by jury of unlawful use of a weapon under § 571.030.1.1; other charges were acquitted.
- Instruction No. 12 required concealed firearm, readily capable of lethal use, and knowledge for conviction.
- Witnesses and victim testified about Wright displaying a gun to threaten them; companion saw a gun in his waistband.
- Police later pat down Wright and found a loaded 9-millimeter handgun in his waistband, with bullets admitted into evidence.
- Standard of review requires the appellate court to view evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine if any rational juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Statute § 571.030.1 prohibits carrying a concealed firearm or other weapon readily capable of lethal use; Wright challenged both concealment and the need for proof of functionality.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there sufficient evidence of concealment beyond a reasonable doubt? | Wright | Wright | Yes; concealment supported by evidence gun was not discernible until shown |
| Must the State prove that a concealed firearm is functional for § 571.030.1? | Wright | Wright | No; no requirement to prove functionality for conviction |
| Does § 571.030.1 require proof that the firearm was readily capable of lethal use? | Wright | Wright | Court treated readiness as satisfied by the presence of a loaded firearm; functionality not required |
| Was the jury instruction MAI-CR 3d 331.20 properly applied without objection? | Wright | Wright | Instruction conformed to MAI-CR 3d 331.20; no error requiring reversal |
| Did the record support a conclusion that Wright concealed the firearm on his person? | Wright | Wright | Yes; sufficient evidence supported concealment |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Belton, 158 S.W.3d 307 (Mo. banc 2005) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence in criminal appeals)
- State v. Miller, 372 S.W.3d 455 (Mo. banc 2012) (deference to jury and reasonable-doubt framework)
- State v. Patterson, 624 S.W.2d 11 (Mo.1981) (concealment may be shown by non-discernibility)
- State v. Purlee, 839 S.W.2d 584 (Mo. banc 1992) (dicta on functionality; exemption defense discussed)
- State v. Richardson, 886 S.W.2d 175 (Mo. App. 1994) (cases held no requirement for firearm to be loaded or operational)
- State v. Geary, 884 S.W.2d 41 (Mo. App. 1994) (no functionality requirement for conviction under § 571.030.1)
- State v. Lutjen, 661 S.W.2d 845 (Mo. App. 1983) (supporting interpretation of concealed weapon statute)