Nikki Leann Knauls v. State of Arkansas

Cite as 2020 Ark. App. 48
Digitally signed by Elizabeth ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
Perry
Date: 2022.08.10 13:24:58 DIVISION II
-05'00' No. CR-19-495
Adobe Acrobat version:
2022.001.20169 Opinion Delivered: January 29, 2020

NIKKI LEANN KNAULS APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN
APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FORT
SMITH DISTRICT
V. [NO. 66FCR-18-725]

STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE HONORABLE STEPHEN TABOR,
JUDGE

AFFIRMED

BART F. VIRDEN, Judge

Appellant Nikki Leann Knauls appeals from a Sebastian County jury’s verdict

convicting her of possession of methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia. She

was sentenced to an aggregate term of twelve years’ imprisonment with four of those years

suspended. Knauls argues that the trial court erred in denying her directed-verdict motion.

We affirm her convictions.

I. Trial Testimony

The following is a summary of the trial testimony. On June 5, 2018, Detective Bill

Hardin with the Fort Smith Police Department went to 3316 North 54th Street to serve an

arrest warrant on John Bonds, Jr. When he knocked on the door, a woman said that she

was not dressed. While waiting for Knauls to come to the door, Hardin heard voices and

movement inside the residence. When the door was finally opened, Hardin told her why
he was there, and Knauls simply made a motion indicating that Bonds was in a bedroom at

the back of the house. Hardin found Bonds hiding in the bedroom, arrested him, and took

him away. Hardin decided to seek a search warrant for Knauls’s residence.

Sergeant Richard Wright with the Fort Smith Police Department conducted

surveillance on Knauls’s residence until a search warrant could be obtained. Around 3:00

p.m. he observed a black woman and a white man leave the residence. The woman, later

identified as Knauls, drove away from the residence, and the man, later identified as

Frederick Johnson, went back inside the residence.

Within ten or fifteen minutes after Knauls had left the residence, police officers

returned with the search warrant. Inside a water-heater closet, officers found a small plastic

baggie containing what was later determined to be 1.7361 grams of methamphetamine and

a glass pipe for smoking methamphetamine. They found a set of digital scales on a table in

the living room. They also found an empty baggie containing residue on a kitchen table

near some mail addressed to Knauls at her North 54th Street residence and another empty

baggie in the master bedroom.

Lieutenant Wayne Barnett with the Fort Smith Police Department testified that he

interviewed Knauls at the police station. After Barnett had read her Miranda rights, Knauls

said that she had been using methamphetamine since she was fourteen years old. She further

stated that the last time she had smoked methamphetamine was around noon that same day.

When asked about the items found in her home, Knauls denied knowing anything about

them and denied that they belonged to her.

2
At the close of the State’s case, Knauls moved for a directed verdict, but the trial

court denied the motion. Donna Ann Bell, a convicted felon, testified for the defense. She

said that she had known Knauls for over twenty years and that they are neighbors. According

to Bell, she heard Bonds fighting with Knauls the night before the search, and she saw Bonds

the following morning walking toward Knauls’s residence with drugs. Bell admitted that

she was disclosing this information for the first time at trial.

Defense counsel renewed his motion for a directed verdict, and it was again denied.

The jury convicted Knauls of possession of methamphetamine and possession of drug

paraphernalia.

II. Discussion

Any person who possesses methamphetamine with an aggregate weight, including

any adulterant or diluent, of less than two grams is guilty of a Class D felony. Ark. Code

Ann. § 5-64-419(b)(1)(A) (Repl. 2016). A person who uses or possesses with the purpose

to use drug paraphernalia to store, contain, or conceal a controlled substance is guilty of a

Class D felony. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-443(c) (Supp. 2019).

Knauls argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion for a directed verdict.

An appeal from the denial of a motion for a directed verdict is a challenge to the sufficiency

of the evidence. Cook v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 726, 379 S.W.3d 618. In reviewing a

challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, this court determines whether the verdict was

supported by substantial evidence, direct or circumstantial. Id. Substantial evidence is

evidence that is forceful enough to compel a conclusion one way or the other without

resorting to speculation or conjecture. Id. Circumstantial evidence may provide a basis to

3
support a conviction, but it must be consistent with the defendant’s guilt and inconsistent

with any other reasonable conclusion. Morgan v. State, 2009 Ark. 257, 308 S.W.3d 147.

Whether the evidence excludes every other hypothesis is left to the jury to decide. Id. The

credibility of witnesses is an issue for the jury and not the court. Id. The trier of fact is free

to believe all or part of any witness’s testimony and may resolve questions of conflicting

testimony and inconsistent evidence. Id. We view the evidence in a light most favorable to

the State and consider only the evidence that supports the verdict. Id.

When possession of contraband is an element of the offense, the State is not required

to prove literal physical possession. Block v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 83, 455 S.W.3d 336.

Constructive possession is sufficient. Bailey v. State, 307 Ark. 448, 821 S.W.2d 28 (1991).

To prove constructive possession, the State must establish that the defendant exercised care,

control, and management over the contraband. Block, supra. We look to whether the

contraband was located in a place that was under the dominion and control of the accused.

Bailey, supra. Constructive possession may be implied when the contraband is in the joint

control of the defendant and another person. Id. Joint occupancy alone, however, is not

sufficient to establish possession or joint possession; there must be some additional factor

linking the accused to the contraband. Id. In joint-occupancy cases, the State must prove

two additional elements: (1) the accused exercised care, control, and management over the

contraband, and (2) the accused knew the matter possessed was contraband. Franklin v. State,

60 Ark. App. 198, 962 S.W.2d 370 (1998). The defendant’s control over and knowledge of

the contraband can be inferred from the circumstances, such as the proximity of the

4
contraband to the accused, the fact that it is in plain view, the ownership of the property

where the contraband is found, and the accused’s suspicious behavior. Bailey, supra.

Knauls argues that the only evidence against her was that she owns the residence

where the contraband was found, but she points out that her young daughter lived there as

well; Johnson was present; and the jury may have believed that Bonds lived there. She asserts

that she was not even at the residence when the search warrant was executed. Knauls argues

that it cannot be said with certainty that the contraband belonged to her as opposed to

anyone else seen at the residence that day. She focuses on Bonds, who she says had significant

access to the residence, had been seen walking toward her home with methamphetamine in

his possession the morning of the search, and was arrested near an empty baggie in the

bedroom. 1 Knauls points out that most of the drug paraphernalia was found in common

areas and could have belonged to anyone at her residence and that the methamphetamine

and glass pipe were hidden in a closet that was not secured. Knauls further contends that,

although she told police that she had smoked methamphetamine earlier that day, the officers

testified that she showed no indication that she was under the influence of drugs during the

interrogation or while she was under surveillance. Finally, Knauls argues that there is no

evidence to indicate that she used any of the methamphetamine found at her residence.

1
Knauls also argues that Bonds admitted after his arrest that he had hidden drugs in
her residence. This information, however, was brought out by defense counsel in his
opening statement and closing argument, but no such evidence was presented at trial. The
jury was instructed that opening statements and closing arguments by the attorneys are not
evidence and that statements made with no basis in the evidence must be disregarded. Jurors
are presumed to comprehend and follow the court’s instructions. Kelly v. State, 350 Ark.
238, 85 S.W.3d 893 (2002). Thus, the jury could not have considered defense counsel’s
assertion that Bonds admitted hiding drugs at Knauls’s residence, and we likewise do not
consider it.

5
We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State: Knauls owns the

residence where the methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia were found. The

methamphetamine, weighing 1.7361 grams, along with a pipe, was found hidden in a water-

heater closet, and the other drug paraphernalia was found in plain view in common areas.

Officers found mail addressed to Knauls at the residence beside an empty baggie containing

residue. The jury could have believed that Knauls’s actions when Hardin knocked on her

door were suspicious in that she could have been “buying time” while she hid the

contraband. Knauls cannot disclaim possession of the contraband simply because she was not

present when the search warrant was executed. See, e.g., Cary v. State, 259 Ark. 510, 534

S.W.2d 230 (1975) (holding that there was sufficient evidence that Cary had joint possession

of drugs even though he was not present when his apartment was raided).

The officers served the arrest warrant on Bonds the morning of June 5; the officers

placed the house under surveillance until they could get a search warrant; Knauls left the

residence around 3:00 p.m.; officers arrived with the search warrant approximately fifteen

minutes later and found the contraband; and Knauls admitted that she had smoked

methamphetamine around noon that day—regardless of whether she appeared to be under

the influence of the drug. The timing of the arrest and search warrants indicates that Knauls

was indeed smoking methamphetamine at her home. Knauls concedes in her brief on appeal

that her admission that she smoked methamphetamine earlier that day shows that she had

knowledge that there was contraband in her residence, but she insists that she did not know

about the contraband that was hidden. The only device for smoking methamphetamine that

was found during the search was the pipe hidden in the water-heater closet. While Knauls

6
claims that there is no evidence that she smoked any methamphetamine from the stash found

at her home, the jury was not required to believe that improbable explanation. See Block,

supra (The Arkansas Supreme Court has also considered the improbability that anyone other

than the defendant placed the contraband in the location and the improbable nature of the

defendant’s explanations.). Further, the jury was not required to believe Bell’s testimony

suggesting that Bonds had framed Knauls by hiding methamphetamine inside her residence.

Morgan, supra. Knauls’s knowledge of and control over the contraband found in her

residence can be inferred from these circumstances. Because there was substantial evidence

to support Knauls’s convictions for possession of methamphetamine and possession of drug

paraphernalia, we affirm.

Affirmed.

SWITZER and BROWN, JJ., agree.

King Law Group PLLC, by: Natalie S. King, for appellant.

Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Adam Jackson, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

7