Full Opinion

Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 478 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CR-25-765 STUART ROSS SCHIELL Opinion Delivered October 7, 2026 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 72CR-24-470] STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE JOANNA TAYLOR, APPELLEE JUDGE AFFIRMED WENDY SCHOLTENS WOOD, Judge Stuart Schiell appeals the order entered by the Washington County Circuit Court convicting him of possession of methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia and sentencing him to seventy-two months of probation and a $1,000 fine for possession of methamphetamine and ninety days in the Washington County Detention Center for possession of drug paraphernalia. On appeal, he contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction for possession of methamphetamine. We affirm. I. Relevant Facts On the night of February 18, 2024, Corporal Justin Harris and Detective Mark Eck, both officers with the Fayetteville Police Department, stopped Schiell for “driving left of center” after they saw him leave the parking lot of King Tobacco, an establishment known for drug activity. Schiell was the sole occupant of the vehicle. Schiell told the officers that he was coming from a nearby bar and restaurant called Morano’s, although the officers had seen him at King Tobacco immediately before the stop. Corporal Harris noticed a small piece of bubble-wrap packaging on the front passenger seat that looked like packaging used for “glass meth pipes.” At Detective Eck’s request, Schiell stepped out of the car, leaving the driver’s door open. Corporal Harris saw “a small glass jar or vial” containing a “white crystalline substance” in the handhold on the driver’s door. A field test on the substance was positive for methamphetamine. As Schiell was being placed under arrest for possession of drug paraphernalia, he told the officers that “he gives rides to a lot of people.” Corporal Harris and Detective Eck then searched Schiell’s vehicle and found a small bag of methamphetamine concealed in a matchbox inside a purse located near the center console in the front-passenger area. A field test on a “crystal” from the matchbox was positive for methamphetamine. No other person’s identifying information was found in the vehicle or in the purse. When Corporal Harris returned to the patrol unit to talk with Schiell, he noticed a bulge in the upper part of Schiell’s left sock and removed “a clear glass smoking pipe” that appeared to have residue on it. Upon discovery of the pipe in his sock, Schiell said, “So I indulge a little.” After the officers transported Schiell to the county jail, an intake deputy searched Schiell and found another bag of methamphetamine. Schiell told the officers that he had found the “baggies” in a parking garage or parking lot. 2 Two items of methamphetamine, ME 1 (approximately 0.35 grams) found in Schiell’s vehicle and ME 2 (approximately 0.30 grams) found on Schiell, were submitted to the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory (ASCL) for testing. The ASCL testing confirmed that there were 0.3466 grams of methamphetamine in ME 1. Because the ASCL testing results for ME 1 met the highest charge, ME 2 was not tested. The State charged Schiell with one count of possession of a Schedule I/II controlled substance—methamphetamine, less than two grams, a Class D felony, in violation of Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-419(b)(1)(A) (Repl. 2024), and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor, in violation of Ark Code Ann. § 5-64-443(a)(1) (Repl. 2024). The charges were based on allegations that on or about February 18, 2024, Schiell had in his possession and control a usable amount of approximately 0.65 grams of methamphetamine, a pipe containing methamphetamine residue, and several glass jars used to contain methamphetamine. At the jury trial held on May 8, 2025, Schiell’s counsel moved for a directed verdict at the close of the State’s case-in-chief. He argued, as relevant here, that the State did not meet its burden of proof with respect to evidence that Schiell knowingly possessed the methamphetamine. The circuit court denied the motion. Schiell then testified in his own defense. He said that he worked for the Salvation Army for a couple years and gave rides to a lot of people, including homeless people. He surmised that the drugs found in his car could have belonged to someone to whom he had given a ride. He testified that he thought the purse had been left behind by someone named 3 Savannah. As for the glass smoking pipe in his sock, he said that he saw it on the floorboard and knew he needed to hide it but did not think he would be asked to step out of the car during a traffic stop. After the defense rested, Schiell’s counsel renewed the motion for directed verdict, adding, as to the element of possession, that considering Schiell’s testimony, “there now is dispute as to if the items found in the car were those belonging to Mr. Schiell or others that he provided rides to within the community.” The circuit court again denied the motion. Schiell was found guilty, and in accordance with the jury’s recommendation, the circuit court sentenced him to seventy-two months of probation and a $1,000 fine for possession of methamphetamine and ninety days in the Washington County Detention Center for possession of drug paraphernalia. The sentencing order was entered on May 14, 2025, and Schiell filed a timely notice of appeal. II. Standard of Review A motion for a directed verdict is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Keys v. State, 2021 Ark. App. 469, at 6, 636 S.W.3d 835, 839; Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1. In reviewing a sufficiency challenge, we assess the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and consider only the evidence that supports the verdict. Breshears v. State, 2023 Ark. App. 442, at 2, 675 S.W.3d 493, 495. We will affirm a judgment of conviction if substantial evidence exists to support it. Id., 675 S.W.3d at 495. Substantial evidence is evidence that is forceful enough to compel a conclusion beyond suspicion or conjecture. Martin v. State, 2019 Ark. App. 19, at 3, 567 S.W.3d 558, 560. 4 Circumstantial evidence may provide the basis to support a conviction if it is consistent with the defendant’s guilt and inconsistent with any other reasonable conclusion. Breshears, 2023 Ark. App. 442, at 2, 675 S.W.3d at 495. Such a determination is a question for the jury to determine. Id., 675 S.W.3d at 495. The credibility of witnesses is an issue for the jury, not the court; 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. at 3, 675 S.W.3d at 495. A person’s intent or state of mind is rarely capable of proof by direct evidence and most often is inferred from the circumstances of the crime. Id. at 7, 675 S.W.3d at 498. A jury is not required to lay aside common sense and may infer guilt from improbable explanations or incriminating conduct. Id., 675 S.W.3d at 498. III. Discussion Schiell contends that the circuit court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict on the charge of possession of methamphetamine. He argues that the State failed to prove beyond suspicion or conjecture that he physically or constructively possessed the methamphetamine found in his vehicle. More specifically, he argues that the evidence presented did not establish that he knew there was methamphetamine concealed in a matchbox inside a purse that was in his vehicle but that did not belong to him. It is unlawful for a person to possess a controlled substance. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64- 419(a) (Repl. 2024). Possession of less than two grams of a Schedule I or Schedule II controlled substance that is methamphetamine is a Class D felony. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64- 419(b)(1)(A). The jury was instructed that to sustain the charge of possession of a controlled 5 substance, the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (1) that Schiell possessed methamphetamine and (2) that he did so knowingly. A person acts knowingly with respect to his conduct or the attendant circumstances when he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that the attendant circumstances exist. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-202(2)(A) (Repl. 2024). Generally, it is not necessary for the State to prove literal physical possession of contraband to prove possession. Evans v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 283, at 5, 715 S.W.3d 112, 115. Possession of contraband can be proved by constructive possession, which is the right to control the contraband. Id., 715 S.W.3d at 115; see also Keys, 2021 Ark. App. 469, at 8– 9, 636 S.W.3d at 840 (holding that proof that the accused is the driver of the car is evidence that he exercised dominion and control over the contraband found therein). To prove constructive possession, there must be some evidence that the accused had knowledge of the contraband’s presence. Evans, 2025 Ark. App. 283, at 5, 715 S.W.3d at 115. Knowledge and control of the contraband, however, can be inferred from the circumstances, such as the proximity of the contraband to the accused and the accused’s ownership of the property where the contraband is found. Id., 715 S.W.3d at 115. Constructive possession may be inferred when the contraband is found in a place immediately and exclusively accessible to the accused and subject to his control. Polk v. State, 348 Ark. 446, 453, 73 S.W.3d 609, 614. “Furthermore, an accused’s suspicious behavior coupled with proximity with the contraband is clearly indicative of possession.” Id., 73 S.W.3d at 614. 6 We hold that substantial evidence supports Schiell’s conviction for possession of the methamphetamine found in his vehicle. Schiell was the only person in the vehicle at the time of the traffic stop. A vial with methamphetamine residue was found in the driver’s door handhold next to where he had been sitting just before he was asked to step out of the vehicle. No other person’s identifying information was found anywhere in the vehicle or in the purse containing the methamphetamine that was found in his car. Moreover, an additional bag of methamphetamine was found on Schiell when he was searched at the county jail. See Breshears, 2023 Ark. App. 442, at 8 n.4, 675 S.W.3d at 498 n.4 (noting that our supreme court has held that testimony may provide substantial evidence of the identity of a controlled substance, even in the absence of chemical testing (citing Kellensworth v. State, 2021 Ark. 5, 614 S.W.3d 804; Springston v. State, 327 Ark. 90, 936 S.W.2d 550 (1997))). Further, when officers found “a clear glass smoking pipe” in Schiell’s sock, he admitted that he “indulge[s]” a little. Because the evidence supporting the verdict compels the conclusion that Schiell had knowledge and control over the methamphetamine at issue, we affirm. Affirmed. TUCKER and HIXSON, JJ., agree. Mitch Rouse, for appellant. Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: David L. Eanes, Jr., Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee. 7