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