Cited by

her (a) that law enforcement found the item in a location “under defendant’s exclusive control to which other people did not normally have access,” or (b) if law enforcement found the item in a location others could access, that “there is a strong probability (inferable from other evidence) that defendant was at the time consciously exercising dominion and control over it.”

felony liability, is to be imposed for conduct unaccompanied by fault, the legislative intent to do so should be clear.” C.R.M., d at 809 (); see, (reading knowledge requirement into possession of controlled-substance statute).

Actual possession means that the defendant had “actual or physical possession [of the firearm] when arrested.”

(stating that there was no actual possession when there was clearly no evidence that the controlled substances found in an abandoned vehicle were phy sically possessed by the defendant).

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].”

efendant’s exclusive control to which other people normally did not have access”; or (2) “if police found the item in a place to which others had access, the State must show that 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 ().

Constructive possession exists “where the inference is strong that the defendant at one time physically possessed” an item and “continued to exercise dominion and control over it up to the time of the arrest.” ().

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].”

continued to exercise dominion and control over it up to the time of the arrest.” ().

d 609, 611 (Minn. 1975).

Constructive possession exists “where the inference is strong that the defendant at one time physically possessed the [relevant item] and did not abandon his possessory interest in the [item] but rather continued to exercise dominion and control over it up to the time of the arrest.”

[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 ().

To establish possession of a controlled substa nce, “the state must prove that [the] defendant consciously possessed, either physically or constructively, the substance and that [the] defendant had actual knowledge of the nature of the substance.”

continued t o exercise dominion and control over it up to the time of the arrest.” d 609, 610 (Minn. 1975).

continued to exercise dominion and control over it up to th e time of the arrest.” .

To establish 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.”

Constructive possession exists “where the inference is strong that the defendant at one tim e physically possessed the substance and did not abandon his possesso ry interest in the substance but rather continued to exercise dominion and control over it up to the time of the arrest.”

th e substance and that defendant had actual knowledge of the nature of the substance.”

Constructive possession exists “where th e inference is strong that the defendant at one time physically possessed the [item] and did not abandon his possessory interest in the [item] but rather continued to exercise dom inion and control over it up to the time of the arrest.” State v. Florine

ded to show: (1) that the police found the contraband “in a place under defendant’s exclusive control to which other people did not normally have access,” or (2) “that, if police found it in a place to which others had access, there is a str ong probability (inferable from other evidence) that defendant was at the time consciously exercising dominion and control over it.” s ee also State v. Myrland , d 415, 420 (Minn. App. 2004) (s tating that because appellant was not seen viewing images or usi

To prove possession, the state must show that the defendant “consciously possessed, either physically or constructively, the substance.”

see also State v. Hunter , (clarifying that constructive possession requires a suspect’s exercise of dominion an d control over the substance, not over the place where it is found).

To prove unlawful possession, the state must show that the defendant “consciously possessed, either physically or constructively, the substance and that [the] defendant had actual knowledge of the nature of the substance.”

State v. Florine , -611 (Minn. 1975).

but where the inference is strong that the defendant at one time physically possessed the [contraband] and did not abandon his possessory interest in the [contraband].” d 609, 610 (Minn. 1975).

doctrine is to establish po ssession in cases where the state cannot prove actual or physical possession at the time of arrest, but where “the inference is strong that the defendant at one time physically possessed the [item] and did not abandon his possessory interest in the [item] but rather continued to exercise dominion and control over it up to the time of the arrest.”

1) the prohibited item was found “in a place under [the] defendant’s exclusive control to which other people did not normally have access ,” or (2) if police found the prohibited item “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.”

8 (d 609, 611 (Minn. 1975)).

To 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.” State v. Florine

d “in a place under [the] defendant’s exclusive control to which other people did not normally have access,” or (2) if the firearm was found in a place to which other people 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.” Salyers, d at 159 ().

“[T]he state must prove that [the] defendant consciously possessed, either physically or constructively, the substance.”

th e substance and that defendant had actual knowledge of the nature of the substance.”

und th e [firearm or ammunition] in a place under defendant’s exclusive control to which other people did not normally have access”; or (2) “if police found [the firearm or ammunition] 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.”

Constructive 3 possession requires the state to demonstrate that the prohibited item was found “in a place under defendant’s exclusive control to which other people did not normally have access” or, if others had access, “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 , -11 (Minn. 1975) (per curiam) (citing Charles H. Whitebread & Ronald Stevens, Constructive Possession in Narcotics Cases: To Have and Have Not, 58 Va.

the substance and that [the] defendant had actual knowledge of the nature of the substance.” State v. Florine