Featherston v. State

687 S.W.3d 150

2024 Ark. App. 207

Reginald FEATHERSTON, Appellant

v.STATE of Arkansas, Appellee

No. CR-23-337

Court of Appeals of Arkansas, DIVISION IV.

Opinion Delivered March 27, 2024

APPEAL FROM THE HEMPSTEAD COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 29CR-20-186], HONORABLE JOE C. SHORT, JUDGE

Jacob Stem Potter, for appellant.

Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Brooke Jackson Gasaway, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

BART F. VIRDEN, Judge

₁Reginald Featherston appeals his convictions by a Hempstead County Circuit Court jury of one count of possession of methamphetamine with purpose to deliver, a Class A felony, and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class D felony. Featherston also appeals the circuit court’s denial of his motion for a new trial. We affirm.

I. Relevant Facts

On August 17, 2020, Featherston was charged with one count of possession of methamphetamine with purpose to deliver, and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia. During jury selection on August 29, 2022, the court asked the jurors if they knew of any reason that, if chosen as a juror, he or she could not be absolutely fair and impartial and base his or her opinion on the law and the facts presented. Morgan Satterwhite, who became Juror #2, did not respond. The State followed up with questions ₂regarding the jurors’ ability to be impartial and gave them an opportunity to bring up anything about a relationship with Featherston or any of the court officers, and again, Satterwhite did not speak up. When questioned individual- ly, she stated there was no reason she could not be fair and impartial.

The trial took place on August 30 and 31. Sergeant Justin Crane, a criminal investigator with the Hempstead County Sheriff’s Office testified first. He explained that on July 9, 2020, he was stationed at the South View Apartments conducting surveillance on an apartment suspected to be a place methamphetamine was sold. Around 4:00 p.m., Sergeant Crane was getting ready to leave when he saw a white BMW driven by Featherston enter the apartment complex. Crane waved Featherston down, and Sergeant Gary Dorman asked to speak with Featherston. Featherston parked the car, rolled up his window, stepped out of the vehicle, and locked the doors. Featherston consented to a search of his person, and officers found $719, which Featherston explained came from an ATM in town, and two plastic sandwich bags containing suspected methamphetamine residue. Featherston was arrested for possession of drug paraphernalia. He denied consent to search his vehicle. A drug-detection dog conducted a "free sniff" around the vehicle and alerted to the driver’s-side door. The officers searched the vehicle and found a box of chicken in the front passenger’s seat that contained a sandwich bag holding approximately eighty-eight suspected ecstasy tablets. Next to the box of chicken, officers found an eye-glass case containing a pipe with what Sergeant Dorman identified as methamphetamine residue throughout the stem. Further items found in the search included two cell phones, a box of small plastic bags, and ₃"shake" (methamphetamine particles) in the seams of the driver’s seat. Photographs of the parking lot taken during the investigation were admitted into evidence, showing that there was a group of around eight people near the car. Sergeant Crane testified that no one was allowed in the car where the evidence was found.

Jennifer Shirley, a forensic chemist with the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory, testified that she analyzed the evidence gathered from Featherston’s car and person. Shirley stated that the total weight of the pills found in the box of chicken was 11.5417 grams, and she tested a 5.7705-gram sample. Shirley testified that the pills were a combination of methamphetamine and caffeine, and the ratio of the substances was not discerned in testing. Shirley testified that she was not asked to test the residue in the pipe.

Featherston moved for a directed verdict, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. Regarding possession of drug paraphernalia, Featherston asserted that there was inconsistent testimony regarding whether there was methamphetamine residue on the pipe; thus, there was not sufficient evidence that the pipe was used to ingest methamphetamine. Featherston asserted that the State did not prove that 11.5 grams of methamphetamine was found in his car because the chemist testified that the ratio of methamphetamine to caffeine was unknown, and she tested roughly only half of the drugs seized. He argued that the State did not prove intent to deliver because of the lack of drug-distribution accoutrements found during the search. There were no scales or "evidence to suggest that he had anything to package the methamphetamine." Regarding constructive possession of methamphetamine, Featherston argued that here there was no testimony

₄that it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant exercised care, control and management over the contraband. It was testified to that the meth was not in plain view. There were no fingerprints or other kind of Forensic evidence taken. There was no proof giv-en by the officers about whose box of chicken it was. And I believe that the State hasn’t excluded the other reasonable hypothesis which it could be a previous passenger’s. There was no testimony that anybody saw him with MDMA -- I’m sorry, the tablets. There was no testimony that the officers saw Mr. Featherston with the tablets or that he even tried to conceal it. There was no indication that he acted suspiciously.

Featherston argued that the number of people surrounding the crime scene constituted reasonable doubt. Regarding the paraphernalia charge, Featherston asserted that the State has not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed drug paraphernalia with the purpose to ingest methamphetamine because tablets are not ingested through smoking a pipe. He argued that there are legal uses for the pipe, and there was no expert testimony concerning its use. The directed-verdict motion was denied.

The defense called no witnesses and renewed its motion for a directed verdict. Featherston stated that there was insufficient evidence that he possessed methamphetamine. He asserted that

[t]he possession is as alleged by the State, although not by name is constructive rather than physical possession. The tablets or paraphernalia were not in plain view. There was not any further evidence to connect my client with the paraphernalia or the tablets. There was no kind of a receipt recovered by the officers or presented by the State.

Featherston argued that no one saw him with the tablets, and there was no evidence that he attempted to conceal the tablets or the paraphernalia. He contended that there was no effort to secure the crime scene, and an unknown number of people were near the vehicle. Regarding intent to deliver, Featherston asserted that there were no tools of delivery, ₅including a means to weigh or separate the tablets, or any evidence of drug-related transactions taking place. As to possession of drug paraphernalia, Featherston restated that the methamphetamine recovered was in tablet form, and not crystals that are smoked; thus, the pipe could have been used to smoke tobacco or marijuana.

He asserted that the officers "did not mention in their Affidavit for Warrant of Arrest or their narrative that they found methamphetamine residue in the pipe, it was only yesterday that they mentioned -- well there was methamphetamine residue in the pipe." The motion was denied, and the jury found Featherston guilty on both charges.

After the verdict was delivered, the following colloquy occurred:

Mr. Potter: My client has told me just now that a female juror, number two, approached him on Monday night and said some things to him. I don’t know if right now is -- all I know is what he’s told me this instance and I haven’t had a chance to investigate the varsity (sic) of those claims but I’m bringing it to your attention. And that’s just what he’s told me.

Mr. Hale: Told you after the verdict or before?

Mr. Potter: After.

The Court: No. You can make some kind of posttrial motion. I do not believe that that occurred.

Mr. Potter: Yes, Your Honor

The jury delivered the sentences, and Featherston was sentenced by the court to fifty years’ imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction as a large habitual offender pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-501(b) (Repl. 2016), with a sentencing enhancement for possessing methamphet- amine within one thousand feet of certain facilities.

₆On October 20, 2022, Featherston filed a motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct. In his motion, he asserted that on Monday, August 29, 2020, after jury selection had concluded, a woman approached him at the convenience store and told him that she could "help or hurt" him. He did not respond to her. Featherston did not recognize the woman as Juror #2 until the jury was deliberating on guilt or innocence. Featherston asserted that Juror #2 misled the court by not disclosing any knowledge of the case or Featherston during jury selection. Counsel "immediately" notified the court, and the court "declined to intervene." Featherston asserted that he believed Juror #2 influenced the jury to convict him because he did not respond to her proposition. Featherston also argued that the evidence was insufficient to uphold his convictions.

The hearing on the motion was held November 21, 2022. Juror #2 testified that her only contact with Featherston was on "the second day," a Tuesday, and the first day of testimony. She testified that she was walking back to the courthouse as a recess was ending, and Featherston asked her if she had a lighter. She testified that she responded, "I don’t smoke," and there was no other contact or discussion between them. Satterwhite stated that she knew of and frequented the convenience store Featherston identified in his motion for a new trial, but she did not remember seeing him...