Cited by

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

308 citing documents.

State v. Simon 275 N.W.2d 51 Minn. 1979
State v. Simon 275 N.W.2d 51 Minn. 1979
See, State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103
State v. Slifka 256 N.W.2d 90 Minn. 1977
State v. Slifka 256 N.W.2d 90 Minn. 1977
See, State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103
State v. Carr 249 N.W.2d 443 Minn. 1976
State v. Carr 249 N.W.2d 443 Minn. 1976
Our discussion of the constructive-possession doctrine in State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104 , bears repeating here: “The purpose of the constructive-possession doctrine is to include within the possession statute those cases where 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 physi
State v. Mollberg 246 N.W.2d 463 Minn. 1976
State v. Mollberg 246 N.W.2d 463 Minn. 1976
In State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 105 , this court stated: “* * =1= [W]e believe that in 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 fou