STATE OF LOUISIANA v. STEPHEN KRELL (2026)

The State of Louisiana charged the defendant, Stephen G. Kreil, by bills of information with possession of a Schedule II controlled dangerous substance less than two grams (methamphetamine), in violation of La. R.S. 40:967(C) (count one); possession of a Schedule I controlled dangerous substance less than two grams (heroin), in violation of La. R.S. 40:966 (count two); possession of a Schedule II controlled dangerous substance less than two grams (Adderall), in violation of La. R.S. 40:967(C) (count three); and possession of contraband upon the grounds of any state correctional institution, in violation of La. R.S. 14:402(B) (count four and count five).¹ The defendant pled not guilty. Following a two-day jury trial, a six-person jury unanimously convicted the defendant as charged on all five counts.

The defendant filed a motion for new trial. The State also filed an amended habitual offender bill of information, seeking to have the defendant deemed a second-felony habitual offender pursuant to La. R.S. 15:529.1(A)(1).² Following a hearing, the trial court denied the defendant's motion for new trial and adjudicated him a second-felony habitual offender. The trial court then sentenced the defendant to eighteen months at hard labor on counts one and three; three years at hard labor on count two; and four years at hard labor on counts four and five. The trial court ordered all sentences to be served consecutively for an aggregate sentence of fourteen years at hard labor. The defendant now appeals, asserting two counseled assignments of error and one pro se assignment of error. For the following reasons, we reverse the defendant's convictions, vacate his habitual offender adjudication, and vacate his sentences.

FACTS

In April 2021, the defendant was incarcerated at Dixon Correctional Institute (“DCI”), where he was working as an orderly in the concession stand. On April 3, 2021, correctional officers were alerted to a report of a possible escape after Security Officer Shanita Angrum witnessed an individual running away from the perimeter fence. Correctional officers conducted an emergency count of the prisoners, which determined that all prisoners were present. The following day, Shift Supervisor Major Huey Haley reviewed surveillance footage to ascertain whether contraband was thrown over the prison fence by the person seen running. Major Haley observed inmate Santana Percy on the surveillance footage walking near the fence with a blue tote bag the prior evening, April 2, 2021. The surveillance footage showed Percy stop at the fence, stoop down, and then walk to the concession stand. At the concession stand, Percy spoke briefly with the defendant, who unlocked a locker with a key. Percy placed the tote bag in the locker. A subsequent search of the concession stand revealed a litany of drugs, cell phones, smoking tobacco, lighters, and SIM cards.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR ONE

In his first counseled assignment of error, the defendant asserts the evidence was insufficient to support the guilty verdicts.³ Specifically, he contends the evidence failed to demonstrate his actual or constructive possession beyond a reasonable doubt.

Law: Sufficiency of the Evidence

A conviction based on insufficient evidence cannot stand, as it violates due process. U.S. Const. amend. XIV; La. Const. art. I, § 2; State v. Anthony, 2023-0117 (La. App. 1 Cir. 11/3/23), 378 So.3d 766, 770, writ denied, 2024-00027 (La. 5/21/24), 385 So.3d 242. The standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction is whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could conclude the State proved the essential elements of the crime and the defendant's identity as the perpetrator of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560, 573 (1979); State v. Coleman, 2021-0870 (La. App. 1 Cir. 4/8/22), 342 So.3d 7, 11, writ denied, 2022-00759 (La. 11/21/23), 373 So.3d 460. The Jackson standard of review, incorporated in La. C.Cr.P. art. 821(B), is an objective standard for testing the overall evidence, both direct and circumstantial, for reasonable doubt. State v. Welch, 2019-0826 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/21/20), 297 So.3d 23, 27, writ denied, 2020-00554 (La. 9/29/20), 301 So.3d 1193.

When circumstantial evidence is used to prove the commission of the offense, La. R.S. 15:438 mandates “assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” This is not a separate test for evaluating the evidence; rather, all of the evidence, both direct and circumstantial, must be sufficient under Jackson to convince a rational juror the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Dorsey, 2010-0216 (La. 9/7/11), 74 So.3d 603, 633, cert. denied, 566 U.S. 930, 132 S.Ct. 1859, 182 L.Ed.2d 658 (2012). When a case involves circumstantial evidence and the jury reasonably rejects the hypothesis of innocence presented by the defense, that hypothesis falls, and the defendant is guilty unless there is another hypothesis that raises a reasonable doubt. State v. Captville, 448 So.2d 676, 680 (La. 1984); State v. Bessie, 2021-1117 (La. App. 1 Cir. 4/8/22), 342 So.3d 17, 22, writ denied, 2022-00846 (La. 9/20/22), 346 So.3d 802.

As noted above, the defendant was convicted of possession of a Schedule II controlled dangerous substance less than two grams (methamphetamine); possession of a Schedule I controlled dangerous substance less than two grams (heroin); possession of a Schedule II controlled dangerous substance less than two grams (Adderall); and two counts of possession of contraband upon the grounds of any state correctional institution.

It is unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to possess a controlled dangerous substance classified in Schedules I or II. La. R.S. 40:966(C) and La. R.S. 40:967(C). Heroin is a controlled dangerous substance classified in Schedule I. Methamphetamine and Adderall are controlled dangerous substances classified in Schedule II. See La. R.S. 40:964. Louisiana Revised Statutes 14:402(B) prohibits the possession of contraband upon the grounds of any state correctional institution. At the time of the commission of the offenses, La. R.S. 14:402(D)⁴ defined contraband, in pertinent part, as:

(1) Any controlled dangerous substance as defined in R.S. 40:961 et seq., or any other drug or substance that if taken internally, whether separately or in combination with another drug or substance, produces or may produce a hypnotic effect.

* * *

(9) Any telecommunications equipment or component hardware, including but not limited to cellular phones, pagers, beepers, global satellite system equipment, subscriber identity module (SIM) cards, portable memory chips, batteries, and chargers, whether or not such equipment may be intended for use in planning or aiding an escape or attempt to escape from any institution, unless authorized by the warden of the institution.

On the issue of whether the evidence sufficiently proved possession, the State is not required to show actual possession of the narcotics by a defendant in order to convict. Constructive possession is sufficient. State v. Toups, 2001-1875 (La. 10/15/02), 833 So.2d 910, 913; State v. Steiner, 2021-1337 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/3/22), 2022 WL 1830834, *2 (unpublished). A person is considered to be in constructive possession of a controlled dangerous substance if it is subject to his dominion and control, regardless of whether or not it is in his physical possession. Also, a person may be in joint possession of a drug if he willfully and knowingly shares with another the right to control the drug. However, the mere presence in the area where narcotics are discovered or mere association with the person who does control the drug or the area where it is located is insufficient to support a finding of constructive possession. Steiner, 2022 WL 1830834 at *2.

A determination of whether or not there is “possession” sufficient to convict depends on the peculiar facts of each case. Factors to be considered in determining whether a defendant exercised dominion and control sufficient to constitute possession include his knowledge that drugs were in the area, his relationship with the person found to be in actual possession, his access to the area where the drugs were found, evidence of recent drug use, and his physical proximity to the drugs. Steiner, 2022 WL 1830834 at *2. The possession of contraband is analogous to the possession of a controlled dangerous substance and the possession of stolen things. State v. Nobles, 53,453 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/20/20), 296 So.3d 1192, 1196. In some cases, possession may be established by shared control. Nobles, 296 So.3d at 1196.

Evidence and Testimony Presented at Trial

At trial, Officer Shanita Angrum testified she was a rover security officer at DCI in April 2021. As part of her job duties, Officer Angrum patrolled the perimeter of the prison to ensure prisoners were not escaping, fighting, or engaging in otherwise impermissible behavior. On the evening of April 3, 2021, Officer Angrum saw an individual running away from the perimeter fence towards the parking lot and assumed the person was an escapee. Officer Angrum testified she called for backup.

Major Johnathon Cutrer responded immediately.⁵ Major Cutrer testified that after he was alerted to the possible escape, he ordered an emergency count of the prisoners. All of the prisoners were accounted for at the emergency count. At that point, Major Cutrer concluded that no prisoners had escaped, and he turned his attention to searching for contraband that might have been thrown over the perimeter fence. Major Cutrer described contraband as including narcotics, cell phones, weapons, lighters, and anything else prisoners are not allowed to possess.

Major Huey Haley testified he was the supervisor of the day shift at DCI in April 2021.⁶ On April 3, 2021, Major Haley was a member of the tactical unit that responded to the report of a possible escapee. Major Haley testified he was “puzzled” about the situation, so the next morning, he began reviewing surveillance footage recorded around the time of the report of a possible escape.⁷ Major Haley said he observed a prisoner named Santana Percy carrying a blue tote bag stop near the fence as an individual approached from the other side. According to Major Haley, Percy then stooped to the ground, stayed there for a few minutes, picked up the blue tote bag, and placed the bag in a cart. Percy headed into the concession stand area where the defendant worked. Major Haley explained the blue tote bags were used to deliver food as part of the concession stand operations. When the State asked whether Percy worked in the concession stand, Major Haley testified he thought Percy was a gym orderly and was allowed in that area.

Major Haley testified the surveillance video depicted Percy carrying the blue tote bag as he walked through the gymnasium door headed towards the concession stand where the defendant worked. The defendant and Percy had a brief conversation at the defendant's desk. At the time of this testimony, the State had not yet published the surveillance videos, and Major Haley testified he had not watched the videos since 2021.⁸ A review of this video reveals the entire initial interaction between the defendant and Percy was obstructed by various kitchen appliances or cabinets, and the State introduced footage only from the one surveillance camera. Major Haley testified that when the emergency count was ordered, the defendant and Percy walked to a nearby locker, and Percy placed the blue tote bag inside. Major Haley reviewed surveillance from the next morning, testifying the footage showed Percy remove the blue tote bag after the defendant unlocked the locker. The defendant continued unlocking the remainder of the concession stand lockers and preparing for the day's work. To Major Haley's knowledge, the defendant was the only prisoner who had access to the keys to unlock the lockers and cabinets. According to Major Haley, Percy emptied the blue tote bag on a nearby table and placed the contraband in a yellow box, which he later put in another cabinet.⁹ Major Haley testified the defendant appeared to be cleaning and tidying up his work station, but the defendant briefly stood near Percy at one point. Major Haley instructed Captain Walter Johnson to search the concession stand, and he recovered several packages. In addition to the drugs, the correctional officers found brand new cell phones, lighters, tobacco, and SIM cards in the yellow box locked in the cabinet with a yellow cooler on top.

On cross-examination, Major Haley admitted he never saw the defendant actually possess the blue tote bag containing the contraband in any of the videos. Further, Major Haley testified the defendant locked, unlocked, opened, and closed many of the concession stand lockers and cabinets as part of his job duties.

Joann Williams was employed at DCI and was responsible for searching the concession stand with Captain Johnson. Williams testified they found cell phones, tobacco, and cigarette lighters during the search, and she found a cell phone in an envelope on the defendant's desk. Specifically, Williams was questioned as followed:

Q. Did you find anything that you could link to [the defendant]?

A. A cell phone was on his desk.

Q. How did you — how did you link it to him?

A. ’Cause the desk where it was, in the little envelope, is where — is his office.

Q. So you found an envelope․

A. Yes, Ma'am.

Q․in the place that [the defendant] usually works?

A. Yes, Ma'am. I picked up the envelope. I turned it upside down and the cell phone fell out.

She agreed there was nothing on or in the envelope that identified the envelope or cell phone as belonging to the defendant. Williams said this was the only time she had to do a disciplinary write-up on the defendant.

Captain Walter Johnson worked at DCI in April 2021. On April 4, 2021, he participated in the search of the gym and concession stand area. They found drugs, nine or ten cell phones,¹⁰ cell phone chargers, lighters, and SIM cards inside the yellow box with a Styrofoam tray “stuffed down in the bottom[.]” The yellow box was found in the bottom righthand side of a locked concession stand cabinet. Captain Johnson identified the defendant as the orderly who was assigned to the rear of the kitchen. Captain Johnson confirmed the defendant had the keys that locked everything in the concession stand, though he testified other DCI employees also had keys to those cabinets. Captain Johnson testified other prisoners worked in the area, including Percy. Captain Johnson said he confiscated all the contraband and turned it all over to Major Haley.

Brittany Morrill, an analyst with the Louisiana State Police Crime Lab, was accepted as an expert in chemical analysis. Morrill identified several envelopes containing substances she received from DCI, and she testified the substances she tested were determined to be methamphetamine, Adderall, and heroin.

Analysis and Discussion

On appeal, the defendant argues the State failed to prove he actually possessed or constructively possessed any drugs or contraband. He notes the testimony showed Percy was the only individual who possessed the blue tote bag carrying the contraband, and though the surveillance video showed him locking the bag in a concession stand locker, the State did not prove he had knowledge of the drugs within. Similarly, the defendant asserts the State failed to prove he had knowledge of or dominion and control over the drugs and contraband when Percy relocated the items of contraband from the blue tote bag into the yellow box the next day.

The State, on the other hand, argues the defendant was a “member of a contraband ring” responsible for introducing and storing contraband in the prison. The State contends the defendant and Percy were involved in a drug-smuggling operation, and thus, constructive possession was established. As discussed above, constructive possession exists when an offender has guilty knowledge of the contraband's presence and exercises dominion and control over it. State v. Fisher, 2019-01899 (La. 5/13/21), 320 So.3d 400, 403 (per curiam). Several factors are relevant to a determination of whether a defendant exercised dominion and control sufficient to constitute constructive possession. These factors include knowledge that drugs were present; the defendant's relationship with the person found to be in actual possession; defendant's access to the area where the drugs were found; evidence of the defendant's recent drug use; and defendant's physical proximity to the drugs. Toups, 833 So.2d at 913.

In an attempt to establish constructive possession, the State relied heavily on the surveillance footage from the concession stand and Major Haley's narration of what he recalled observing in the videos. Undoubtedly, Percy can be seen carrying the blue tote bag into the concession stand where the defendant worked on April 3, 2021. Major Haley explained the blue tote bags were used to deliver food as part of the concession stand operations and that Percy was an orderly who was allowed to be in the concession stand. The defendant and Percy had a brief conversation after Percy entered, but the surveillance camera did not have audio recording capability, and any visual observations one could make of their conversation are limited by the obstructions in the concession stand. We do not know the subject matter of their conversation. We do know that an emergency count was ordered almost immediately afterwards. Major Haley testified that, generally, when an emergency count was ordered, the defendant was required to lock all of the lockers and cabinets and leave the concession stand. While Major Haley speculated that Percy told the defendant about the contraband in the blue tote bag in their brief conversation and that the defendant locked the tote bag inside the locker to avoid discovery, we find the defendant's hypothesis of innocence to be sufficiently reasonable. Specifically, it was reasonable to find the defendant had no knowledge of the contraband inside the blue tote bag, and once the emergency count was ordered, he locked all of the concession stand supplies in the lockers as required.

The surveillance footage from April 4, 2021, the day after the emergency count, similarly fails to prove constructive possession. That morning, the defendant unlocked all of the lockers and Percy later removed the blue tote bag. The surveillance footage shows Percy walk a short distance with the blue tote bag to the defendant's desk where he stayed for some time. Major Haley initially testified that Percy could be seen sorting through the contraband in the surveillance footage, but he later equivocated in his testimony after re-watching the footage. The area in the concession stand where Major Haley speculated this occurred was completely obstructed by appliances or cabinets. The footage showed that the defendant removed the yellow box from one of the lockers, placed the yellow box on his desk, lingered near the desk briefly, and then continued his job duties. Several minutes later, Percy retrieved a Styrofoam tray from a shelf on the other side of the concession stand and returned to the desk. He eventually placed the yellow box on the floor, and the defendant brought the yellow box to the cabinet before locking it inside.

Again, it is impossible to observe Percy's actions while at the defendant's desk due to the obstructions, and there was no footage from a different camera angle entered into evidence. It is undisputed the defendant never possessed the blue tote bag containing the contraband in any of the videos. The State presented no evidence of the defendant's guilty knowledge of the drugs and other contraband within the blue tote bag nor did the State establish he had dominion and control of the drugs and other contraband the next day. The State attempted to prove the defendant was the sole prisoner with access to the locker, but even that fact, without more, does not establish the defendant's guilty knowledge of the presence of the drugs. The evidence showed the defendant was in the presence of drugs, as the drugs and other contraband were found in the concession stand where he worked. However, this alone is insufficient evidence to prove the defendant knew of the drugs hidden in the blue tote bag Percy placed in the locker.

There was no evidence establishing a relationship between Percy and the defendant, much less a “drug smuggling operation” as the State claims on appeal. Finally, there was no evidence of recent drug use by the defendant. Based on the evidence presented, the jury could only speculate to find the defendant guilty of constructive possession of the methamphetamine, Adderall, heroin, and the other contraband found within the yellow box.

The only remaining issue pertains to the cell phone Williams testified she found on top of the defendant's desk. A cell phone is contraband for purposes of La. R.S. 14:402(D)(9). The only mention of that specific cell phone was during Williams’ brief trial testimony. In effect, her testimony indicated she found an envelope on the desk where the defendant worked, and a cell phone fell out when she turned the envelope upside down. She testified there was nothing on or within the envelope that identified it as belonging to the defendant, and there was no further mention of the cell phone itself. On cross-examination, Williams testified other prisoners had access to the concession stand, and the surveillance footage showed the defendant's desk was in the middle of the sizable concession stand where other orderlies worked. Simply put, there was no evidence that the defendant actually possessed or constructively possessed the cell phone.

Even evaluating the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, giving deference to the jury's assessment of credibility and weighing of the evidence, and without substituting our own appreciation of the facts for that of the jury, this court finds the alternative hypothesis of innocence is sufficiently reasonable that a rational juror could not have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt under Jackson. See State v. Crawford, 2014-2153 (La. 11/16/16), 218 So.3d 13, 29. Under these circumstances, we find it necessary to reverse the defendant's convictions. We further vacate his habitual offender adjudication and the sentences imposed. This determination pretermits consideration of the remaining assignments of error.

DECREE

We reverse the defendant's convictions. We further vacate his habitual offender adjudication and vacate the imposed sentences.

CONVICTIONS REVERSED; HABITUAL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION VACATED; SENTENCES VACATED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The State of Louisiana charged the defendant by separate bills of information filed in separate trial court docket numbers in the Twentieth Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Feliciana: 22-CR-25, 26, 27, 28, & 29. For clarity, we refer to each charge as count one through five, respectively.

2.   Louisiana Revised Statutes 15:529.1 has since been amended. See 2024 La. Acts No. 4, § 3 (Second Ex. Session) (eff. July 1, 2024). See also 2025 La. Acts No. 246, § 1 (eff. Aug. 1, 2025). We use the 2021 version of La. R.S. 15:529.1 in effect at the time of the commission of the crimes. See State v. Sugasti, 2001-3407 (La. 6/21/02), 820 So.2d 518, 520-21.

3.   The question of the legal sufficiency of evidence is properly raised by a motion for post-verdict judgment of acquittal. See La. C.Cr.P. art. 821; State v. Stalls, 2023-0829 (La. App. 1 Cir. 9/26/24), 405 So.3d 786, 790 n.3 (en banc), writ denied, 2024-01276 (La. 4/23/25), 406 So.3d 1177. The defendant failed to file a motion for post-verdict judgment of acquittal. However, the failure to file a motion for post-verdict judgment of acquittal does not preclude appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence. See State v. Washington, 421 So.2d 887, 889 (La. 1982).

4.   Louisiana Revised Statutes 14:402 has since been amended. See 2023 La. Acts No. 302, § 1 (eff. Aug. 1, 2023). We use the 2021 version of La. R.S. 14:402 in effect at the time of the commission of the crimes. See State v. Sugasti, 2001-3407 (La. 6/21/02), 820 So.2d 518, 520-21.

5.   Major Cutrer testified he was a Lieutenant Colonel at the time of the instant trial.

6.   Major Haley testified he was the Assistant Warden of DCI at the time of the instant trial.

7.   The surveillance cameras at DCI have video recording capability only. Major Haley testified the timestamps on the videos are not accurate.

8.   The two-day jury trial was held on June 18 and 19, 2024.

9.   Later in his testimony, Major Haley testified that it “appeared” Percy was emptying the blue tote bag and going through its contents. (R. 306). The area in the concession stand where Major Haley speculated this occurred was completely obstructed by appliances or cabinets.

10.   The record is unclear as to the number of cell phones recovered from the concession stand. At trial, Captain Johnson testified that correctional officers confiscated ten cell phones, which were included as part of State's Exhibit 10. However, State's Exhibit 11 includes Captain Johnson's confiscation report, which described nine cell phones with specificity. He testified the confiscation report “describe[d] everything that [he] found.”

EDWARDS, J.

GREENE, J. dissents