Judgment rendered July 16, 2025. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 922, La. C. Cr. P.
No. 56,317-KA
COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA
*****
STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee
versus
KEITH ADAMS Appellant
Appealed from the First Judicial District Court for the Parish of Caddo, Louisiana Trial Court No. 399,147
Honorable Erin Leigh Garrett, Judge
LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT Counsel for Appellant By: Peggy J. Sullivan
JAMES E. STEWART, SR. Counsel for Appellee District Attorney
ROSS S. OWEN TOMMY J. JOHNSON Assistant District Attorneys
Before PITMAN, ROBINSON, and ELLENDER, JJ. PITMAN, C. J.
The jury found Defendant Keith Adams guilty as charged of three
counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, one count of
possession with intent to distribute a Schedule I Controlled Dangerous
Substance (“CDS”), three counts of illegal carrying of weapons while in
possession of a CDS and one count of unlawful handling of a machine gun.
The trial court sentenced him to 20 years at hard labor without benefit of
probation, parole or suspension of sentence for each count of possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon; to 7 years at hard labor for possession with
intent to distribute a CDS; to 8 years at hard labor without benefit of
probation, parole or suspension of sentence for each count of illegal carrying
of weapons while in possession of a CDS; and to 8 years at hard labor for
unlawful handling of a machine gun. It ordered all sentences to run
concurrently with each other and gave Defendant credit for time served. It
also ordered him to serve 100 days in the parish jail in lieu of a fine for the
convictions of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, to run
concurrently with the other sentences. Defendant appeals his convictions.
For the following reasons, we affirm his convictions and sentences.
FACTS
On February 1, 2024, the state filed a bill of information. On June 4,
2024, it filed an amended bill of information charging Defendant with three
counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, one count of
possession with intent to distribute a Schedule I CDS, three counts of illegal
carrying of weapons while in possession of a CDS and one count of
unlawful handling of a machine gun. It alleged that on or about December
7, 2023, Defendant unlawfully possessed a Glock 17 9mm handgun, a Glock 29 10mm handgun and an Anderson Arms AM15M, after having
been previously convicted on September 7, 2023, of possession with intent
to distribute a Schedule I CDS; knowingly and intentionally possessed with
intent to distribute less than 2.5 pounds of marijuana; used, possessed or had
under his immediate control a Glock 17 9mm handgun, a Glock 29 10mm
handgun and an Anderson Arms AM15M, while in possession of marijuana;
and possessed a machine gun capable of automatically discharging more
than eight cartridges successfully without reloading.
A jury trial began on August 5, 2024. Officer Sherry Cone, a
probation and parole specialist with the Department of Corrections, testified
that she supervises people released from prison or placed on probation
supervision. In that capacity, she came into contact with Defendant in
December 2023 when he was on supervision for a felony offense that
prohibited him from having a weapon. She testified that on December 7,
2023, she and other officers went to Defendant’s residence, and, after
several minutes, his stepmother answered the door. The officers told
Defendant they were there to perform a drug screen. Defendant responded
that he would be positive for marijuana, and they obtained a drug screen,
which showed Defendant was positive for oxycodone and marijuana. The
officers notified Defendant they would conduct a violation search. Ofc.
Cone recalled that an officer remained in the living room with Defendant,
his stepmother and his 16-year-old brother. Officers then entered
Defendant’s bedroom and found ammunition, high-capacity magazines and
digital scales. Ofc. Cone noted that a digital scale is more consistent with
drug distribution than drug use. Officers then walked into the laundry room
located off the bedroom and, in a backpack on a shelf, found ammunition 2 and a brass catcher, i.e., a device that catches ejected shell casings. Inside
the dryer, an officer found a bag containing digital scales, packaging and a
vacuum-sealed bag with half a pound of suspected marijuana. Ofc. Cone
noted that this amount of marijuana and the presence of sandwich bags were
consistent with someone selling rather than using marijuana. She testified
that officers then notified Defendant of his Miranda rights but allowed him
to remain in the house during the search. She stated that in a kitchen
cabinet, an officer located another high-capacity magazine and more heat-
sealed bags with marijuana residue in them, which were consistent with
someone who has purchased a large amount of marijuana to sell. Officers
then approached Defendant’s brother’s bedroom, which was locked. Ofc.
Cone testified that Defendant’s stepmother stated that she did not know why
the room would be locked, and Defendant “jumped up” and told officers
they could not search that room. Defendant was disruptive and would not be
seated when asked by officers, so Ofc. Cone decided that he should be taken
to one of the officer’s vehicles. She testified that Defendant’s stepmother
voluntarily unlocked the bedroom door, and officers observed marijuana and
digital scales on a table. They then found three firearms in the closet, i.e., a
standard Glock, a Glock with a switch that made it a fully automatic weapon
and an AR-type pistol that was loaded with armor-piercing rounds. She
noted that the magazines and ammunition found in Defendant’s bedroom
were consistent with the firearms located in his brother’s bedroom. She
stated that Defendant’s stepmother told her that the firearms did not belong
to her or her husband.
Officer Dave Kerr testified that on December 7, 2023, he went to
Defendant’s residence. He stated that he and another officer approached the 3 house and knocked on the door several times and that after three or four
minutes, Defendant’s stepmother answered the door. He explained to the
stepmother that they were there to perform a drug screen on Defendant. He
stated that the drug screen was positive, so they conducted a violation
search. He searched Defendant’s bedroom and the laundry room. In the
laundry room he found a backpack on a shelf above the dryer, and the
backpack contained different types of ammunition and a new brass catcher.
He notified Ofc. Cone, and another officer handcuffed Defendant and read
him his rights. The officers then continued their search and found a duffel
bag inside the dryer, which contained suspected marijuana. Ofc. Kerr
testified that when they turned their search to the kitchen and other
bedrooms, Defendant was “adamant” that they could search his room only.
He explained that when they asked Defendant’s stepmother about the locked
door and she offered to unlock it, Defendant became “pretty excited” about
the fact that they could not go in that room. Ofc. Kerr testified that they had
to restrain Defendant and then escorted him to his unit.
Officer Elizabeth Anderson testified that she participated in a
residence check. She stated that other officers went to the door and that it
took several minutes for anyone to answer the door. Because of Defendant’s
positive drug screen, the officers conducted a search of the residence. She
noted several violations present in Defendant’s bedroom, including weapons
magazines and a set of digital scales. She stated that these items are
consistent with a drug dealer rather than a drug user. Because of the
paraphernalia located in the bedroom, officers expanded their search to the
laundry room, where they found a large amount of marijuana and an AR
magazine. She then went to open a door that was locked and stated that 4 Defendant “became very belligerent” that she could not go in that room.
She stated that a woman commented that she did not know why the door was
locked and then unlocked the door. Ofc. Anderson entered the bedroom and
saw digital scales and suspected marijuana residue on a table. She then
found weapons between a mattress and the closet. She stated that the
weapons were a Glock 29 10mm, a Glock 17 9mm with a switch to make it
fully automatic and an Anderson Arms AM 15 multi-caliber rifle. She noted
that the weapons were found in one bedroom and that the ammunition and
magazines were found in Defendant’s bedroom and the laundry room. She
noted that it would be a probation violation for Defendant to be around that
amount of marijuana or to have the semi-automatic handguns found in the
search. On cross-examination, she was unsure if the presence of magazines
or bullets alone would violate the felon with a firearm statute, but she noted
that the bullets do constitute a probation or parole violation.
Officer Samuel Hayes testified that he participated in the drug screen
and search of Defendant’s residence. He stated that he conducted
Defendant’s drug screen, that Defendant admitted prior to the screen that he
was positive for marijuana and that he tested positive for THC and
oxycodone. He stated that in the search of Defendant’s bedroom, officers
found digital scales and multiple magazines for different weapons. He
opened a backpack found in the dryer in an adjacent laundry room and
discovered suspected marijuana inside.
Officer Anne Winterton testified that she participated in the search of
Defendant’s residence, specifically in the kitchen. She found a magazine in
a cabinet above the refrigerator and a vacuum-sealed bag on top of an
armoire. She explained that vacuum-sealed bags are generally used to 5 package materials for distribution and that the magazine was for a semi-
automatic handgun like a Glock.
Jaylon Wright, a forensic chemist at the North Louisiana Crime Lab,
was accepted as an expert in forensic chemistry. He performed scientific
analysis on the suspected marijuana and determined that it was marijuana,
which is a Schedule I CDS. He stated that the total weight of the item was
248.4 grams and the tested weight was 227.9 grams, which is approximately
half a pound.
Agent Kevin Harris of the Caddo Parish Sheriff’s Office narcotics
task force testified about his knowledge in the field of drug users and
dealers. He noted that sandwich bags are commonly used with marijuana
dealing and that firearms are used for protection purposes. He stated that,
statutorily, 2.5 pounds is the amount at which someone is presumed to be a
drug dealer rather than possessing it for personal use. He explained that the
presence of half a pound of marijuana found with smaller amounts in
packaging is consistent with the intent to distribute.
On August 6, 2024, the jury found Defendant guilty as charged on all
eight counts.
On August 27, 2024, Defendant filed a motion for new trial and a
motion for post-verdict judgment of acquittal. In both motions he argued
that the state failed to prove he possessed any of the firearms or marijuana
and failed to establish the nexus between the firearms and marijuana found
in the home.
A sentencing hearing was held on September 6, 2024. The trial court
sentenced Defendant to 20 years at hard labor without benefit of probation,
parole or suspension of sentence for each conviction of possession of a 6 firearm by a convicted felon. It noted that these sentences carry a minimum
fine of $1,000 and converted these fines to 100 days in jail, to run
concurrently. Regarding the conviction of possession with intent to
distribute a Schedule I CDS, the trial court sentenced Defendant to seven
years at hard labor. For each of the three convictions for illegal carrying of
weapons while in possession of a CDS, the trial court sentenced Defendant
to eight years at hard labor without benefit of probation, parole or
suspension of sentence. Regarding the conviction of unlawful handling of a
machine gun, the trial court sentenced Defendant to eight years at hard labor.
The trial court ordered the eight sentences to run concurrently with each
other and with the 100 days imposed in lieu of the fine. It noted that
Defendant would receive credit for time served and recommended
Defendant for any enrichment programs for which he is eligible.
Defendant appeals.
DISCUSSION
In his sole assignment of error, Defendant argues that the State failed
to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he was guilty of the crimes for which he
was convicted. He contends that the state failed to prove that he possessed
the firearms and CDS found during the search. He states that there was no
evidence proving that he knew the contraband was present or that he
exercised dominion and control over the areas the firearms and marijuana
were found and notes that none of the contraband was found in any space
exclusively or predominantly occupied by him.
The state argues that the evidence presented at trial supports the
affirmation of all convictions. It notes that the ammunition and magazines
recovered from Defendant’s bedroom are consistent with use of the firearms 7 recovered from the locked bedroom. It contends that Defendant had access
to the marijuana and firearms in the house, that the marijuana found in the
backpack in the dryer was in close proximity to Defendant’s bedroom and
that Defendant’s positive drug screen confirmed recent drug use. It also
alleges that the hiding of the marijuana in the dryer, the locking of the
bedroom door and Defendant’s objection to entering the bedroom imply
guilty knowledge of and dominion and control over the contraband.
The standard of appellate review for a sufficiency of the evidence
claim is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to
the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential
elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia,
443 U.S. 307, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979); State v. Hearold,
603 So. 2d 731 (La. 1992); State v. Smith, 47,983 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/15/13),
116 So. 3d 884. See also La. C. Cr. P. art. 821. The trier of fact makes
credibility determinations and may accept or reject the testimony of any
witness. State v. Casey, 99-0023 (La. 1/26/00), 775 So. 2d 1022, cert.
denied, 531 U.S. 840, 121 S. Ct. 104, 148 L. Ed. 2d 62 (2000). The
appellate court does not assess credibility or reweigh the evidence. State v.
Smith, 94-3116 (La. 10/16/95), 661 So. 2d 442.
La. R.S. 14:95.1(A) defines possession of a firearm by a convicted
felon and states, in pertinent part, that it is unlawful for any person who has
been convicted of any violation of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous
Substances Law, which is a felony, to possess a firearm. La.
R.S. 14:95.1(C) adds that this statute shall not apply to any person who has
not been convicted of any felony for a period of ten years from the date of
completion of sentence, probation, parole or suspension of sentence. To 8 convict a defendant of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, the state
must prove beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) the possession of a firearm; (2) a
previous conviction of an enumerated felony; (3) absence of the ten-year
statutory period of limitation; and (4) general intent to commit the offense.
State v. Thomas, 52,617 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/22/19), 272 So. 3d 999, writ
denied, 19-01045 (La. 2/10/20), 292 So. 3d 61. The state can prove
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon by either actual or constructive
possession. State v. Grant, 54,847 (La. App. 2 Cir. 12/14/22), 352 So. 3d
179. Actual possession means having an object in one’s possession or on
one’s person in such a way as to have direct physical contact with and
control of the object. State v. Hill, 53,286 (La. App. 2 Cir. 3/4/20),
293 So. 3d 104. Constructive possession of a firearm occurs when the
firearm is subject to the defendant’s dominion and control. Id. A
defendant’s dominion and control over a weapon constitutes constructive
possession even if it is only temporary and even if the control is shared. Id.
Constructive possession entails an element of awareness or knowledge that
the firearm is there and the general intent to possess it. Id.
La. R.S. 40:966(A)(1) defines possession with intent to distribute a
Schedule I CDS and states that it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly
or intentionally to possess with intent to produce, manufacture, distribute or
dispense a CDS or controlled substance analogue classified in Schedule I.
Pursuant to La. R.S. 40:964, marijuana is a Schedule I CDS. To convict a
defendant of possession of a CDS with intent to distribute, the state must
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly or intentionally
possessed the contraband and that he did so with the intent to distribute it.
State v. Howard, 49,965 (La. App. 2 Cir. 6/24/15), 169 So. 3d 777, writ 9 granted, 15-1404 (La. 12/16/16), 212 So. 3d 1168, and aff’d, 15-1404 (La.
5/3/17), 226 So. 3d 419. Intent to distribute a CDS is a specific intent crime.
Id. Specific criminal intent is that state of mind which exists when the
circumstances indicate that the offender actively desired the prescribed
criminal consequences to follow his act or failure to act. La. R.S. 14:10(1).
Intent to distribute a CDS may be established by proving circumstances
surrounding the defendant’s possession that give rise to reasonable
inferences of his intent to distribute. State v. Howard, supra. The state need
not prove the defendant actually possessed a CDS, as evidence of
constructive possession is sufficient. Id. Constructive possession is
established by evidence that the CDS was within the defendant’s dominion
and control and that he had knowledge of its presence. Id. Whether a
defendant exercised dominion and control is based on factors such as his
knowledge that a CDS was in the area; his relationship with other persons
found in actual possession; his access to the area where a CDS was found;
evidence of paraphernalia or of recent use of a CDS; and his physical
proximity to a CDS. Id. Guilty knowledge is an essential element of
possession and can be inferred from the circumstances. Id.
La. R.S. 14:95(E) defines illegal carrying of a weapon while in
possession of a CDS as when the offender uses, possesses or has under his
immediate control any firearm while unlawfully in the possession of a CDS.
In order to convict a defendant of illegal carrying of a weapon while in
possession of a CDS, the state must prove: (1) that the defendant possessed
within his immediate control a firearm or other instrumentality customarily
intended for use as a dangerous weapon, (2) while in possession of, during
the sale of or during the distribution of a CDS. State v. Carr, 55,692 (La. 10 App. 2 Cir. 5/22/24), 387 So. 3d 886, writ denied, 24-00776 (La. 2/28/25),
402 So. 3d 486. The term “possess” encompasses both actual and
constructive possession. State v. Blanchard, 99-3439 (La. 1/18/01),
776 So. 2d 1165.
La. R.S. 40:1752 defines unlawful handling of a machine gun and
states in pertinent part that no person shall possess a machine gun within this
state. A “machine gun” means any weapon that shoots, is designed to shoot
or can be readily restored to shoot automatically more than one shot without
manual reloading by a single function of the trigger. La. R.S. 40:1751. The
term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, and any
part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts
designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun.
Id.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution,
the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant was a felon in
possession of three firearms. Through Ofc. Cone’s testimony and the
introduction into evidence of the bill of information, minutes and guilty plea
transcript of the previous felony, the state demonstrated that Defendant was
convicted in 2023 of possession with intent to distribute a Schedule I CDS
and that ten years had not elapsed when he committed the crimes in the
instant case. The state also proved Defendant’s intent and constructive
possession of the firearms. Several officers testified that there was a
significant delay between when officers knocked on the door of Defendant’s
house and when his stepmother answered the door, which, when considered
with the location of the firearms, suggests he used this time to conceal the
firearms. These officers also testified that Defendant became “belligerent” 11 when they approached the locked bedroom and was “adamant” that they
could not search that room, which demonstrates his knowledge of the
presence of the firearms within that room. Although the firearms were not
found in Defendant’s bedroom, he had sufficient access, as well as dominion
and control, over the areas of the house where they were found. Notably, the
ammunition and magazines found in Defendant’s bedroom were compatible
with the firearms found in the locked bedroom, which further demonstrates
his knowledge and constructive possession of the three firearms.
The state also proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant
possessed with intent to distribute a Schedule I CDS, i.e., marijuana.
Through the testimony of a forensic chemist, the state confirmed that the
suspected marijuana found at Defendant’s house was in fact approximately
half a pound of marijuana. Through the testimony of the officers who
searched Defendant’s house, the state proved that Defendant had
constructive possession of the marijuana, even though it was not found in his
bedroom. Officers discovered the marijuana in a bag inside the dryer in the
laundry room, which is located off Defendant’s bedroom and within his
dominion and control. As discussed above, the minutes it took for someone
to answer the door suggests Defendant used this time to conceal the
marijuana in the dryer, which demonstrates his specific intent and
knowledge of the presence of the marijuana. Defendant’s admission of
marijuana use and the drug screen confirming his use of marijuana also
demonstrate his dominion and control over the marijuana. As noted in the
testimony of several officers, the amount of marijuana found and the
presence of digital scales, packaging and firearms were consistent with an
intent to distribute. 12 As the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant
possessed three firearms and was in possession of marijuana, the state also
proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant illegally carried weapons
while in possession of a CDS.
The state further proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant
unlawfully handled a machine gun. As discussed above, Defendant had
constructive possession of the firearms found at his house, including the
9mm Glock. Ofc. Cone testified that the 9mm Glock was altered with a
switch, which made it fully automatic, and is classified by the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives as a machine gun.
Accordingly, this assignment of error lacks merit.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Defendant Keith Adams’s
convictions and sentences.
AFFIRMED.