Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Florine, 226 N.W.2d 609.

311 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Jacob Ochan Yien Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Tad Isaac Butcher Minn. Ct. App. 2019
ssion, the state must show either that: “the police found the [firearm] in a place under defendant’s exclusive control to which other people did not normally have access,” or that “if police found [the firearm] in a place to which others had 5 access, there is a strong probability that the defendant was at the time c onsciously exercising dominion and control over [it].”
State of Minnesota v. Jaycob Peter Hoffman Minn. Ct. App. 2019
n item, the state must show that: (1) the police found the item “in a place under defendant’s exclusive control to which other people did not normally have access,” or (2) that, if the police found the item “in a place to which 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 of Minnesota v. Aleshia Lynn Becklund Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Douglas Ratcliff Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Allen Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Abdiqadar Salah Kasim Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Gregorio Zuniga-Vallejo Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Paul Mattson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Larry Roy Kiefat, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Florine , 1 (Minn. 1975).
State of Minnesota v. David Alan Nielsen Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Desean Demetrius Crayton Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Troy William Drusch v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
the st ate must show either that: “(1) the police found the [firearm] in a place under defendant’s exclusive control to which other people did not normally have access, or (2) if police found the contraband in a pla ce to which others had access, there is a strong probability that the defendant was at time consciously exercising d ominion and control over [the firearm].”
State of Minnesota v. Travers Davel McDaniel Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Jerrod Daylyn Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
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.
State of Minnesota v. Kenny Lashaun Robertson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Actual possession is generally proved by showing that the defendant had “actual or physical possession [of the firearm] at the time of arrest.”
State of Minnesota v. Devontay Deshaun Hines Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Phillip Edward Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Actual possession is generally proven by showing that the defendant had “actual or physical possession [of the firearm] at the time of arrest.” State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104
State of Minnesota v. Robert Alan Thunder Minn. Ct. App. 2018
When the item is found in a place to which the defendant and others had access, the state must show that “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 , 303 Minn. 103, 105
State of Minnesota v. Jose Alarcon, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Actual possession is generally proven by showing that the defendant had “actual or physical possession [of the firearm] at the time of arrest.” State v. Florine , 303 Minn. 103, 104
State of Minnesota v. Igor Pavlovich Albantov Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The district court instructed the jury that Albantov was in constructive possession of the heroin if it “was in a place under his exclusive control to which other people did not normally have access, or if found in a place to which others had access, [he] knowingly exercised dominion and control over the heroin.” See State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 105, (stating that to establish constructive possession, the state must show either (1) that the prohibited item was found “in a place under defenda
State of Minnesota v. Antwan James Woods Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Actual possession requires “proof that [the defendant] physically had the [gun] on his person,” State v. Smith , while constructive possession requires proof that there is a strong probability, inferable from the evidence, that the defendant consciously exercised dominion and control over the firearm 7 at the time of arrest, see State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 105
State of Minnesota v. Misty Rose Ann Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
at 353-54 (quoting State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 105, ).
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Scott Hacken Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Actual possession is generally proven by showing that the defendant had “actual or physical possession [of the firearm] at the time of arrest.” State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Lloyd Pogatchnik Minn. Ct. App. 2018
the substance and that [the] defendant had actual knowledge of the nature of the substance.” State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104
State of Minnesota v. Kenneth Bernard Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104-05, d 609, 610-11 (1975).
State of Minnesota v. Jeriod David Knerr Minn. Ct. App. 2018
7 (quoting State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 105, ).
State of Minnesota v. Robert Darrell Boettcher Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104, (stating that there must be conscious possession of a controlled substance and actual knowledge of its nature).
State of Minnesota v. Randy Donald Reed Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Constructive possession exists when “there is a strong probability (inferable from other evidence) that the defendant was at the time consciously exercising dominion and control over [the firearm].” State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 105
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Octavio Peralta Minn. Ct. App. 2017
the substance and that [the] defendant had actual knowledge of the nature of the substance.” State v. Florine , 303 Minn. 103, 104
State of Minnesota v. Bryan Alan Bemboom Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104-05, (per curiam) (citing Whitebread & Stevens, Constructive Possession in Narcotics Cases: To Have and Have Not, 58 Va.
State of Minnesota v. Kelly Lynn Wise Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The constructive- possession doctrine is intended to “include within the possession statute those cases where the state cannot prove actual or physical po ssession at the time of arrest but where the inference is strong that the defendant at one time physically possessed the substance and did not abandon his [or her] possessory interest.” State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104-05
State of Minnesota v. Devon Maurice Goode Minn. Ct. App. 2017
the substance and that [the] defendant had actual knowledge of the nature of the substance.” State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104
State of Minnesota v. Chue Feng Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 105, see also Salyers, d at 159 (noting that Minnesota courts “have consistently applied Florine’s analysis as the test for constructive possession”).
State of Minnesota v. Devante Lemuel Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 105
State of Minnesota v. Martize Devone Roland Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Roland argues that the district court’s instruction misstated the law because it varied from the definition of constructive p ossession stated in State v. Florine , 303 Minn. 1 03
State of Minnesota v. Raymon Freeman Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Florine , 303 Minn. 103, 105
State of Minnesota v. Luis Antonio Pimentel Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104 -05, -11 (1975).
State of Minnesota v. Dustin Spencer Casey Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 105, ; see also Barker, d at 353 (“Actual possession, also referred to as physical possession, involves direct physical control.” (quotation omitted) (emphasis added)).
State of Minnesota v. Abel Ricardo Mendoza, III Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(stating that probable cause to arrest exists when the “ objective facts are such that under the circumstances, a person of ordinary care and prudence would entertain an honest and strong suspicion that a crime has been committed ”); State v. Florine , 303 Minn. 103, 105, (outlin ing requ irements of constructive possession); (“A person may constructively possess contraband jointly with another person.” (quotation omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. Fernell Damon Nickson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 105, d 609, 611 (1975).
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Adam Oltz Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See id.; (“Actual possession, also referred to as physical posse ssion, involves direct physical control.” (quotation omitted)); State v. 6 Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 105, (“ [I]n order to prove constructive possession the stat e should have to show (a) that the police found the substance in a place under defendant's exclusive control to which other people did not normally have access, or (b) that, if police found it in a place to which others had acc
State v. Harris 895 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2017
State v. Harris 895 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2017
State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103
State of Minnesota v. Michael Gene Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Florine , 303 Minn. 103, 105, 611 (1975).
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Patrick McShane Minn. Ct. App. 2017
the substance and that defendant had actual knowledge of the nature of the substance.” State v. Florine , 303 Minn. 103, 104, see also State v. Ali , review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Troy Vincent Gottwald Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104
State of Minnesota v. Tyrell Deon Wilson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104, (stating that constructive -possession standards apply to both controlled substances and firearms).
State of Minnesota v. Kristopher Raphael Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2017
structed the jury: “A person who is not in actual possession of a thing but who knowingly has both the power and the intention to exercise authority and control over it, either directly or through a nother person, is in constructive possession of it.” Appellant argues that this instruction was erroneous because it was not the definition of constructive possession stated in State v. Florine , 303 Minn. 103
State of Minnesota v. Demarcus Lemaine Barker 888 N.W.2d 348 Minn. Ct. App. 2016