Pokatilov v. State
2017 Ark. App. LEXIS 163
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Alexander Pokatilov, owner-operator of an automobile-transport carrier, was stopped on I-40 after an officer observed his loaded commercial carrier drift onto the shoulder several times.
- Officer Watkins inspected paperwork (logbooks, bills of lading) and found irregularities and excessive downtime; Pokatilov appeared nervous and discussed marijuana during the encounter.
- Pokatilov consented to a search of the vehicles; officers found Rubbermaid containers and a box in a 1995 Chevy Tahoe, which tested positive for 32.37 pounds of marijuana.
- Pokatilov testified he was merely transporting vehicles, had keys, inspected vehicles but did not look into containers, and denied knowledge of the drugs.
- A Lonoke County jury convicted Pokatilov of possession of a Schedule VI controlled substance with intent to deliver; he received five years’ probation and a $5,000 fine.
- On appeal he challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence, (2) denial of a proffered constructive-possession instruction, (3) refusal to reinstruct the jury, and (4) denial of his motion to suppress (probable cause, reasonable-suspicion/length of detention, and voluntariness of consent).
Issues
| Issue | Pokatilov’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for constructive possession with intent to deliver | Evidence did not prove he knew of or controlled the marijuana; he was merely a transporter | He had immediate/exclusive access (driver, keys, inspected vehicle) and other suspicious indicators; circumstantial evidence supports constructive possession and intent | Affirmed — substantial evidence supported constructive possession and intent |
| Denial of proffered jury instruction requiring knowledge for constructive possession | Instruction was required because commercial-carrier context is analogous to joint-occupancy; knowledge element necessary | Model AMI Crim. 2d 64.420 correctly states law absent joint-occupancy; knowledge not required here | Affirmed — court did not abuse discretion in refusing instruction |
| Refusal to reinstruct jury during deliberations on knowledge vs possession | Jury question showed confusion; proffered instruction was necessary to clarify State’s burden on knowledge | Model instruction was accurate; no basis to give nonmodel instruction | Affirmed — refusal to reinstruct was not an abuse of discretion |
| Denial of motion to suppress (stop, detention, and consent) | Traffic stop lacked probable cause; extended detention exceeded Rule 3.1; consent was not voluntary (felt not free to leave) | Officer observed traffic violations; detention and document inspection lawful; officer had reasonable suspicion to continue; recorded verbal consent was voluntary | Affirmed — stop and continued detention supported; consent found voluntary; suppression denial upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Craig v. State, 314 Ark. 585 (actual possession requires direct physical control)
- Pyle v. State, 314 Ark. 165 (constructive possession inference and joint-control knowledge requirement)
- Polk v. State, 348 Ark. 446 (contraband in a place immediately and exclusively accessible supports constructive possession)
- Walley v. State, 353 Ark. 586 (model constructive-possession instruction legally sufficient)
- Fultz v. State, 333 Ark. 586 (joint-occupancy context requiring knowledge)
- Darrough v. State, 322 Ark. 251 (joint-occupancy analysis and knowledge element)
- Boston v. State, 69 Ark. App. 155 (joint-travel/placement of contraband by third party and knowledge requirement)
- Laime v. State, 347 Ark. 142 (probable cause and reasonable-suspicion standards for traffic stops and detentions)