Cited by

Actual possession means “actual or physical possession at the time of arrest.”

Constructive possession, in contrast, is established when there is a strong inference that the defendant “at one time physically possessed” the firearm and “did not abandon [their] possessory interest in the [item] but rather continued to exercise dominion and control over it up to the time of the arrest.”

Constructive possession may be established if the item is found “in a place under [the] defendant’s exclusive control to which other people [do] not normally have access.”

Constructive possession may be proved by showing that the item was found “in a place under [the ] defendant’s exclusive control to which other people did not normally have access.”

when either (1) the contraband was found “in a place under [the] defendant’s exclusive control to which other people did not normally have access,” or (2) if the contraband was found “in a place to which others had access, there is a strong probability (inferable from other evidence) that [the] defendant was at the time consciously exercising dominion and control over it.” d 609, 611 (Minn. 1975).

r defendant’s exclusive control to which other people did not normally have access,” or (2) that, if police found the contraband in a place where others had access, “there is a strong probability (inferable from other evidence) that defendant was at the time consciously exercising dominion and control over [the contraband].” State 16 v. Florine

“[T]o convict a defendant of unlawful possession of a controlled substance, the state must prove that defendant consciously possessed, either physically or constructively, the substance and that defendant had actual knowledge of the nature of the substance.” (discussing a n analogous, though since-repealed, statute governing unlawful drug possession).

requires proof that the defendant physically possessed the contraband on their person at the time of arrest, while constructive possession requires proof from which “the inference is strong that the defendant at one time physically possessed the [contraband ] and did not abandon his possessory interest in it but rather continued to exercise dominion and control over it.”

wing (1) it was in a place “under the defendant’s exclusive control to which other people normally did not have access,” or (2) it was in a place to which others had access but “there is a strong probability (inferable from other evidence) that at the time the defendant was consciously or knowingly exercising dominion and control over it.” Harris, d at 601 ().

but where the inference is strong that the defendant at one time physically possessed the [contraband] and did not abandon his possessory interest in [it].”

Constructive possession may be proved by showing that the item was found “in a place under [a] defendant’s exclusive control to which other people did not normally have access.” d 609, 611 (Minn. 1975).

To establish constructive possession, the state must show either that the prohibited item was found (a) in an area under defendant’s exclusive control or (b) in an area to which “others had access, [but] there is a strong probability (inferable from other evidence) that defendant was at the time consciously exercising dominion and control over it.” State v. Florine

In contrast, constructive possession occurs when “the inference is strong that the defendant at one time physically possessed the [item] and did not abandon [their] possessory interest in the [item] but rather continued to exercise dominion and control over it up to the time of arrest.”

(stating that the constructive-possession doctrine applies when the state “cannot prove actual or physical possession at the time of arrest but .

The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that the state may prove constructive possession of an object like a firearm by establishing that “there is a strong probability (inferable from other evidence) that defendant was at the time consciously exercising dominion and control over it.”

r that the object was found “in a place under defendant’s exclusive control to which other people did not normally have access” or that it was found “in a place to which others had access” and “there is a strong probability (inferable from other evidence) that defendant was at the time consciously exercising dominion and control over it.” Salyers, d at 159 ().

See, (reading a knowledge requirement into possession-of -a- pistol-in-public statute); (reading a knowledge requirement into possession-of-a-knife-while-on-school-property statute); (reading a knowledge requirement into possession-of-a-controlled-substance statute).

but where the inference is strong that the defendant at one time physically possessed the [contraband]” and “continued to exercise dominion and control over [the contraband].”