DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

308 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota v. Dominic Jason Allen Sam 859 N.W.2d 825 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Dominic Jason Allen Sam 859 N.W.2d 825 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    The state’s contention that appellant possessed the methamphetamine and the gun rests entirely on circumstantial evidence that appellant constructively possessed the drugs and the gun.4 See State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104-05, (holding that the state must prove possession through constructive possession when “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 [contraband] and did not
  • State of Minnesota v. Saaundre Julian Burns Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Saaundre Julian Burns Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    that defendant was at the time consciously exercising dominion and control over it.” 303 Minn. 103, 105
  • State of Minnesota v. Michael Allen Truelove Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Michael Allen Truelove Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104
  • State of Minnesota v. Tommy Salyers, III 858 N.W.2d 156 Minn. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Tommy Salyers, III 858 N.W.2d 156 Minn. 2015
    A rule for constructive possession of the contents of a locked container that focuses on the ready accessibility of the container’s contents to the exclusion of other factors relevant to a defendant’s dominion and control over the container’s contents is inconsistent with Minnesota’s constructive possession doctrine, as articulated in State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103
  • State of Minnesota v. Roosevelt Hunter 857 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Roosevelt Hunter 857 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    In Florine, the supreme court held that a jury may find that a defendant constructively possessed a controlled substance “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.” 303 Minn. 103, 105
  • State of Minnesota v. Shawn Elson Randall Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Shawn Elson Randall Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    See State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104-05
  • State of Minnesota v. Larry Charles Norton Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Larry Charles Norton Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104-05
  • State of Minnesota v. Anthony Otto Boyum Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Anthony Otto Boyum Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104
  • State v. Garcia-Gutierrez 844 N.W.2d 519 Minn. 2014
  • State v. Garcia-Gutierrez 844 N.W.2d 519 Minn. 2014
    See Ndikum, d at 818-19 ; d at 805 ; State v. Florine, 808 Minn. 103 , 104, (holding that possession of a controlled substance is a crime only if the defendant knowingly possesses the substance and has knowledge of the nature of that substance).
  • State v. Salyers 842 N.W.2d 28 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State v. Salyers 842 N.W.2d 28 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    (citing State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 105 , ).
  • State v. Porte 832 N.W.2d 303 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
  • State v. Porte 832 N.W.2d 303 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
    State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104
  • State v. Garcia-Gutierrez 830 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
  • State v. Garcia-Gutierrez 830 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
    42, 48 (Minn.2004) (requiring knowing possession of drugs to be guilty of possessing drugs on school grounds); C.R.M., d at 810 (requiring knowing possession to be guilty of possessing a dangerous weapon at school); (requiring knowing possession for the charge of entering a prison with a weapon or a controlled substance); State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104 , d -609, 610 (1975) (reading a knowledge requirement into possession of a controlled substance statute); State v. Simla, 292 Minn. 1, 10 ,
  • State v. Dickey 827 N.W.2d 792 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
  • State v. Dickey 827 N.W.2d 792 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
    ctive possession of narcotics when the controlled substance is located either (1) “in a place under defendant’s exclusive control to which other people did not normally have access” or (2) “in a place 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, 303 Minn. 103, 105
  • State v. Ndikum 815 N.W.2d 816 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Ndikum 815 N.W.2d 816 Minn. 2012
    (holding that a statute banning a person from bringing a firearm, weapon, or explosives into a correctional facility required the state to show that the defendant knew he possessed the item: ‘We see no reason why the element of scienter should be dispensed with in this situation and we are not convinced that the legislature intended to do so.”); State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104 , (reading a knowledge requirement into possession of a controlled substance statute); State v. Siirila, 292 Minn.
  • State v. Arnold 794 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • State v. Arnold 794 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
    State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104
  • State v. Peck 756 N.W.2d 510 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Peck 756 N.W.2d 510 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    See State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104 , (holding that defendant must consciously possess substance and have actual knowledge of nature of substance).
  • State v. Flowers 734 N.W.2d 239 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Flowers 734 N.W.2d 239 Minn. 2007
    .See id., CRIMJIG 32.42 (citing to State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 105 , which states: "[I]n order to prove constructive possession the state 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 othe
  • State v. Lee 683 N.W.2d 309 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Lee 683 N.W.2d 309 Minn. 2004
    State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 105
  • State v. Myrland 681 N.W.2d 415 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Myrland 681 N.W.2d 415 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    See State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104-05 , (constructive possession may be shown where a strong inference exists that the defendant once possessed the illegal item and continues to exercise dominion and control over it).
  • State v. Benniefield 678 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Benniefield 678 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 2004
    In State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104 , a case charging the defendant with possession of cocaine, we held that the “state must prove that defendant consciously possessed * ⅜ ⅜ the substance and that defendant had actual knowledge of the nature of the substance.” Having established that mens rea is an implied element in the
  • State v. Porter 674 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Porter 674 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 105
  • State v. Arkell 672 N.W.2d 564 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Arkell 672 N.W.2d 564 Minn. 2003
    In State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103 , a defendant was found guilty under Minn.Stat.
  • State v. Benniefield 668 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Benniefield 668 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
    State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103
  • State v. Papadakis 643 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Papadakis 643 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    To satisfy the knowledge element, the state must prove that appellant “had actual knowledge of the nature of the substance.” State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104
  • State v. Breaux 620 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Breaux 620 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 105