Cited by

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

308 citing documents.

State v. Smith 619 N.W.2d 766 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Smith 619 N.W.2d 766 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104
In Re Welfare of C.R.M. 611 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 2000
In Re Welfare of C.R.M. 611 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 2000
1(2) (1974), of the felony offense of unlawful possession of cocaine, but noted “to convict a defendant of unlawful possession of a controlled substance, the state must prove that defendant consciously possessed * * * the substance and that defen *808 dant had actual knowledge of the nature of the substance.” 303 Minn. 103, 104
State v. Denison 607 N.W.2d 796 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Denison 607 N.W.2d 796 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104
State v. Royster 574 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Royster 574 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 105 , (defining constructive possession of controlled substances); (applying Florine constructive possession requirements to possession of a firearm).
State v. Johnson 551 N.W.2d 244 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Johnson 551 N.W.2d 244 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
See State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 105 , (holding defendant may constructively possess a controlled substance found in a place to which others also have access if defendant exercises dominion and control over it).
State v. Robinson 517 N.W.2d 336 Minn. 1994
State v. Robinson 517 N.W.2d 336 Minn. 1994
In State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 105 , as defendant points out, we said that to prove constructive possession the state had to show either (a) the substance was in a place under defendant’s “exclusive” control to which others did not normally have access, or (b) if in a place where others had access, that the defendant wa
State v. Williams 510 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Williams 510 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104
Commissioner v. Fort 479 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 1992
Commissioner v. Fort 479 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 1992
State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104
State v. Olson 466 N.W.2d 44 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Olson 466 N.W.2d 44 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Specifically, possession means “defendant consciously possessed the substance, either constructively or physically, [and] defendant had actual knowledge of the substance’s nature.” State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104
State v. Lozar 458 N.W.2d 434 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Lozar 458 N.W.2d 434 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 105
State v. Wessels 424 N.W.2d 572 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Wessels 424 N.W.2d 572 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
(quoting State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 105 , ).
State v. Hernandez 395 N.W.2d 383 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Hernandez 395 N.W.2d 383 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103 , (LSD found in appellant’s bedroom was sufficient to support conviction for possession).
State v. Lewis 394 N.W.2d 212 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Lewis 394 N.W.2d 212 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104 , (citing LaFave & Scott, Criminal Law § 25, at 182).
State v. Cusick 387 N.W.2d 179 Minn. 1986
State v. Cusick 387 N.W.2d 179 Minn. 1986
e truck was owned by defendant, and where marijuana was found under driver’s seat); State v. Carr, 311 Minn. 161 , (affirming conviction of defendant for possession of controlled substance found in common area of apartment he shared with woman and to which others had access where defendant rushed toward area where drugs were found when police raid started); State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103 , 226 M.W.2d 609 (1975) (affirming conviction of defendant for constructive possession of cocaine and mariju
State v. Munoz 385 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Munoz 385 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104
State v. Zgodava 384 N.W.2d 522 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Zgodava 384 N.W.2d 522 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103
State v. True 378 N.W.2d 45 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. True 378 N.W.2d 45 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104-05 , -11 (1975)
State v. Peterson 375 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Peterson 375 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104-05 , -11 (1975).
State v. Cusick 372 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Cusick 372 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
ANALYSIS To convict a defendant of unlawful possession of a controlled substance, the State must prove 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 , (citing La-Fave & Scott, Criminal Law § 25, at 182).
State v. Wiley 366 N.W.2d 265 Minn. 1985
State v. Wiley 366 N.W.2d 265 Minn. 1985
State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 105
State v. Wiley 348 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Wiley 348 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
The required showing for constructive possession was set forth in State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103 , : “[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 others have access, there is a
State v. Olson 326 N.W.2d 661 Minn. 1982
State v. Olson 326 N.W.2d 661 Minn. 1982
In State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103 , we discussed the constructive-possession doctrine in detail.
State v. Willis 320 N.W.2d 726 Minn. 1982
State v. Willis 320 N.W.2d 726 Minn. 1982
In State v. Fiorine, 303 Minn. 103 , we discussed the constructive possession doctrine in detail.
State v. Strong 294 N.W.2d 319 Minn. 1980
State v. Strong 294 N.W.2d 319 Minn. 1980
State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103
State v. Colsch 284 N.W.2d 839 Minn. 1979
State v. Colsch 284 N.W.2d 839 Minn. 1979
See, State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103 , State v. LaBarre, 292 Minn. 228