Cited by

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

308 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Jessica Corinne Anich Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jessica Corinne Anich Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“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 the police found [the firearm] 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 [the firearm].” State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 105, (emphasis 2 While we agree with the state that a conviction is not required, it is not
State of Minnesota v. Rhiannon Marie Zych Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rhiannon Marie Zych Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104
State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Clyde Griffin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Robert Jamal Poole Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Claude Monroe Washington Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Dennis Bernard Freeman v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Claude Monroe Washington Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(quoting State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 105, ).
State of Minnesota v. Robert Jamal Poole Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Poole points out that, 12 with regard to possession of controlled substance crimes, “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, 303 Minn. 103, 104, (emphasis added).
State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Clyde Griffin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Griffin also argues that in controlled-substance crimes, “the state must prove that defendant consciously possessed, either physically or constructively, the substance and that 14 defendant had actual knowledge of the nature of the substance.” State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104, (emphasis added).
Dennis Bernard Freeman v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[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 the defendant had actual knowledge of the nature of the substance.” State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104
State of Minnesota v. Michael William Kirby Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Michael William Kirby Minn. Ct. App. 2016
the substance and that [the] defendant had actual knowledge of the nature of the substance.” State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104, see also 10A Minnesota Practice, CRIMJIG 20.04 (Supp. 2012) (stating that an element of first-degree controlled- substance crime is that the defendant “knowingly possessed” the requisite weight of methamphetamine).
State of Minnesota v. Lacy Rose Carlsen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Lacy Rose Carlsen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
ng: (1) “the police found the substance in a place under [the] defendant’s exclusive control to which other people did not normally have access,” or (2) “if police found [the substance] 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.” State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 105
State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Dawayne Lester Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Dawayne Lester Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104-05
State of Minnesota v. Maureen Ndidiamaka Onyelobi 879 N.W.2d 334 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Maureen Ndidiamaka Onyelobi 879 N.W.2d 334 Minn. 2016
11 possession of a controlled substance, it must be shown that the defendant, among other things, “consciously possessed [the substance], either physically or constructively.” State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104, (explaining that an individual may constructively possess contraband singly or “jointly with another person,” but “mere proximity to criminal activity does not establish particularized probable cause that a person is engaged in
State of Minnesota v. Bobby Maurice McGary Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Bobby Maurice McGary Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104-05, (applying constructive possession in narcotics cases).
State of Minnesota v. Carlos Maurice Harris Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Carlos Maurice Harris Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(quoting State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 105, ).
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Christopher Seals Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Christopher Seals Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104-05
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Perry Paczkowski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Perry Paczkowski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104
State of Minnesota v. Wallace Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Wallace Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(quoting State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 105, ) (stating that the Florine analysis is fact driven and that “ease of access is certainly one factor relevant to establishing constructive possession”); d 303, 308 (Minn. App. 2013) (stating that “[p]roximity is an important factor in establishing c
State of Minnesota v. Corey Vern Schmidt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. John Jay Pederson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ashimiyu Gbolahan Alowonle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Andrew Bursch Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. John Jay Pederson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(alteration in original) (quoting State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104-05, d 609, 610 (1975)).
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Andrew Bursch Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 105
State of Minnesota v. Ashimiyu Gbolahan Alowonle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
under defendant’s exclusive control to which other people did not normally have access,’ or (2) if the prohibited item was found ‘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.’” (quoting State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 105, ).
State of Minnesota v. Corey Vern Schmidt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104
State of Minnesota v. Pierre Corey Stewart, Appellant.. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Pierre Corey Stewart, Appellant.. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 105
In the Matter of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Special Permit No. 16868 (December 21, 2012) issued to … 867 N.W.2d 522 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Special Permit No. 16868 (December 21, 2012) issued to … 867 N.W.2d 522 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104, (defining “actual possession” as “direct physical control”); Baehr, 258 Minn. at 537, d at 664 (defining “actual possession” in the context of land disputes as “‘actual occupan[c]y,’ which means physical presence
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Thomas Wenthe 865 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Thomas Wenthe 865 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 2015
The offense does not impose strict liability because the state must prove knowledge of drug possession, see State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104 , and we declined to add an additional mens rea requirement for knowledge of the location where the possession occurred.
State of Minnesota v. James Michael Soderbeck Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. James Michael Soderbeck Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104-05
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Dean Kruse Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Dean Kruse Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104, review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Ardell Gentry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Ardell Gentry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104–05, (holding constructive possession exists “where the inference is strong that the defendant at one time physically possessed the substance and did not abandon his possessory interest in the substance but rather continued to exercise dominion and control over it up to the time of the a