Cited by

(explaining that knowledge may be proved by circumstantial evidence).

He acknowledges that Minnesota law does not require possession of a “usable” amount of a controlled substance to show knowing possession, but he contends that constructive possession of the syringe coupled with the trace amount of methamphetamine is sufficient to support a rational inference that he did not know he possessed the methamphetamine in the residue.

–72 (Minn. 1971) (noting that the legislature, in its 1971 session, had determined that possession of even a small amount of marijuana was a crime).

State v. Siirila, 292 Minn. 1, 3

See State v. Siirila , 292 Minn. 1, 10, (concluding that circumstantial evidence is sufficient to establish knowledge).

In State v. Siirila, 292 Minn. 1, the supreme court upheld a jury’s guilty verdict in a drug-possession case in which a very small amount of marijuana was found in a pocket of a jacket that the defendant was wearing at the time of his arrest.

See State v. Siirila, 292 Minn. 1, 10, (“[T]he inference is permissible that, marijuana having been found in a jacket shown to belong to defendant and to have been worn by him, whatever was in the jacket was there with his knowledge.”).

owing possession to be guilty of possessing a dangerous weapon at school); (requiring knowing possession for the charge of entering a prison with a weapon or a controlled substance); State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104 , d -609, 610 (1975) (reading a knowledge requirement into possession of a controlled substance statute); State v. Simla, 292 Minn. 1, 10 , (reading a knowledge requirement into the offense of possession of a small amount of marijua-ná, a gross misdemeanor), cert denied, 408 *924

required the state to show that the defendant knew he possessed the item: ‘We see no reason why the element of scienter should be dispensed with in this situation and we are not convinced that the legislature intended to do so.”); State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104 , (reading a knowledge requirement into possession of a controlled substance statute); State v. Siirila, 292 Minn. 1, 10 , (reading a knowledge requirement into the offense of possession of a small amount of marijuana, a gross misde

2(4) (1971); see also State v. Siirila, 292 Minn. 1, 7 , (noting that the legislature, in its 1971 session, had determined that possession of even a small amount of marijuana was a crime).

See Al-Naseer, d at 688 (citing State v. Siirila, 292 Minn. 1, 10 , ); see also Oman, 261 Minn. at 25-26 , d at 525 (Gallagher, Frank T., J., concurring specially) (noting that, although knowledge must be proved to sustain a conviction, “the jury can find the existence of such knowledge from any relevant circumstances pointing to the probabilit

See State v. Siirila, 292 Minn. 1, 10 , (noting that it is permissible to infer that the defendant knew he had marijuana in his jacket from evidence that the marijuana was found in the jacket the defendant was wearing).

State v. Siirila, 292 Minn. 1, 10 , (holding that Resnick and Morgan were “no longer tenable or controlling” insofar as they were based on a lack of possession of a usable quantity of marijuana).

As we stated in State v. Siirila, 292 Minn. 1, 10 , in a case in which a defendant was convicted of possession of marijuana after marijuana was found in his jacket, “The inference is permissible that, marijuana having been found in a jacket shown to belong to defendant and to have been worn by him, whatever was in the jacket was there