State of Louisiana v. Keith Adams

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.

13