Cited by

State v. Florine , 1 (Minn. 1975).

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 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.

Actual possession is generally proved by showing that the defendant had “actual or physical possession [of the firearm] at the time of arrest.”

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

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

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

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

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

at 353-54 (quoting State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 105, ).

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

See State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104-05, d 609, 610-11 (1975).

the substance and that [the] defendant had actual knowledge of the nature of the substance.” State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104

7 (quoting State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 105, ).

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).

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

the substance and that [the] defendant had actual knowledge of the nature of the substance.” State v. Florine , 303 Minn. 103, 104

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.

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

the substance and that [the] defendant had actual knowledge of the nature of the substance.” State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104

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”).

See State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 105

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 v. Florine , 303 Minn. 103, 105

See State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104 -05, -11 (1975).

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)).

(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 v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 105, d 609, 611 (1975).

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. Florine, 303 Minn. 103

State v. Florine , 303 Minn. 103, 105, 611 (1975).

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.

See State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104

State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104, (stating that constructive -possession standards apply to both controlled substances and firearms).

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

See State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104-05, -11 (1975) (outlining the differences between actual and constructive possession).

This requires proof that the “defendant consciously possessed, either physically or constructively, the substance and that defendant had actual knowledge of the nature of the substance.” State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104