Cited by

See, (concluding the evidence was sufficient to prove Colsch constructively possessed drugs when the drugs were found in a rear bedroom in Colsch’s residence along with “items of male clothing, as well as papers and a checkbook bearing [Colsch’s] name”); (concluding the evidence was sufficient to prove Mollberg constructively possessed drugs found in a bedroom closet when Mollberg “frequently stayed” at the residence, “there were numerous letters addressed to [Mollberg] scattered on the floor of

In State v. Mollberg , the supreme court determined that constructive possession was sufficiently estab lished based on a “str ong probability” that the defendant was consciously exercising dominion and control over marijuana found in a bedroom closet because, though the defendant was not present at the time the bedroo

See, (concluding that the evidence was sufficient to prove constructive possession of drugs found during a search of an occupied home, even though the defendant was not present at the time, because the defendant often stayed at the residence wher e the drugs were foun d and letters to the defendant a

But cf. State v. Mollberg , (affirm ing sufficiency of evidence supporting conviction for constructive possession of marijuana found in bedroom frequently occupied by defendant that contained letters addressed to defendant and parts of a motorcycle owned by defendant).

See, e.g., State v. Colsch , (concluding there was sufficient evidence of constructive possession when p apers identifying the defendant and the defendant’s checkbook were found near the dru gs); (concluding there was suffic ient evidence of constructive possession of marijuana where marijuana, along with letters addressed to defendant and the front end of de fendant’s motorcycle, were fou nd in a bedroom at a residence where defendant frequently stayed).

nder driver’s seat of car , where defendant had been sitting); State v. Carr, 311 Minn. 161, 163, -45 (1976) (affirming conviction based on evidence that heroin was found in kitchen cabinet of home defendant shared with another , that drug paraphernalia was found in box with papers bearing defendant’s name, and that defendant had prick marks on his arm); State v. Mollberg, 310 Minn. 376, 390, (affirming conviction based on evidence that marijuana was found in closet of bedroom where defendant ha

See, State v. Mollberg, 310 Minn. 376, 390, review denied (Minn. June 13, 2000).

State v. Mollberg, 310 Minn. 376, 385, see also Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 93 S. Ct. 2523 (1973).

State v. Mollberg, 310 Minn. 376, 388

“It is well established that the fact that a defendant exercises his constitutional right to trial by jury to determine his guilt or innocence must have no bearing on the sentence imposed.” State v. Mollberg, 310 Minn. 376, 388, (quotation omitted).

“[A] search is limited in scope to those areas where one would reasonably expect to find the items identified in the search warrant.” State v. Mollberg, 310 Minn. 376, 383

See, (defendant constructively possessed narcotics found, along with a passport, in his bedroom in a mobile home defendant jointly leased with a friend); State v. Mollberg, 310 Minn. 376, 390, (defendant constructively possessed marijuana found in bedroom along with letters addressed to defendant and the front end of defendant’s motorcycle); (defendant constructively possessed marijuana found inside closet in home s

State v. Mollberg, 310 Minn. 376, 388

9 “It is well established that the fact that a defendant exercises his constitutional right to trial by jury to determine his guilt or innocence must have no bearing on the sentence imposed.” State v. Mollberg, 310 Minn. 376, 388, (quotation omitted).

State v. Mollberg, 310 Minn. 376, 390 , State v. LaBarre, 292 Minn. 228, 232-33, 237 , 441 (1972); review denied (Minn. June 13, 2000).

at 863-64 (-05 (Minn.1985) (refusing to suppress because the violation was a technical violation of a statute where there was little doubt a court order would have been issued on request); -09 (Minn.1983) *277 (citing other cases to the same effect); State v. Mollberg, 310 Minn. 376, 386-87 , (agreeing with the approach adopted by federal courts for violations of Fed.R.Crim.P.

See State v. Mollberg, 310 Minn. 376, 390 , (it was proved that defendant possessed marijuana because it was located in a closet where he kept personal items).

See, (holding evidence was sufficient to establish constructive possession in driver of car where cocaine kit was found next to driver’s wallet in front seat of car, even though girlfriend owned car, was cocaine user, and testified cocaine was hers); State v. Mollberg, 310 Minn. 376, 390 , (holding that evidence supported constructive possession of marijuana discovered in bedroom closet of home in which defendant frequently stayed and was expected to return and where police found various items o

The state argues that such minor statutory violations do not merit suppression absent a showing of prejudice by defendant

See, -05 (Minn.1985) (refusing to suppress because violation was technical violation of *864 statute and “[tjhere can be little doubt that a court order would have been issued on request”); -09 (Minn.1983) (citing some of the other cases of this court to the same effect); State v. Mollberg, 310 Minn. 376, 386-87 , (stating that “[w]e fully agree with the approach adopted by the Federal courts” for violations of R. 41).

1826, 1835-36 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966); State v. Mollberg, 310 Minn. 376, 384 , protection of human life, Warden, 387 U.S. at 299-300 , 87 S.Ct.

State v. Mollberg, 310 Minn. 376 , (quoting Hess v. United States, 496 F.2d 936, 938 (8th Cir.1974)).

In State v. Mollberg, 310 Minn. 376 , the supreme court also considered the possibility that a defendant had been penalized for exercising his right to a jury trial and noted the difficulty in ascertaining whether such a penalty had been invoked.

824, 828 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); State v. Mollberg, 310 Minn. 376

Exigent circumstances may exist where there is a risk of removal or destruction of evidence, State v. Mollberg, 310 Minn. 376, 384 , and where the public or the arresting police officers are in danger.

(defendant constructively possessed controlled substances found in a bedroom containing male clothing, as well as papers and a checkbook bearing defendant’s name); (defendant constructively possessed narcotics found, along with a passport, in his bedroom in a mobile home defendant jointly leased with a friend); State v. Mollberg, 310 Minn. 376 , (defendant constructively possessed marijuana found in bedroom along with letters addressed to defendant and the front end of defendant’s motorcycle); S

In State v. Mollberg, 310 Minn. 376 , the court upheld a warrantless search of a dwelling foT drugs because there was a threatened danger of disposal of the drugs by a third person on the premises who could not be arrested.