Cited by

noting that the backpack contained “medical documents containing [Kamara’s] name.” Kamara argues this is insufficient to show constructive possession because a police officer testified that the backpack contained medical documents with M.T.’s or their son’s names on them in addition to Kamara’s. In support of its finding of constructive possession, and Wiley, d at 675-76.

See, (drugs found in the defendant’s home); (defendant’s papers and checkbook found near the drugs); State.

to assert that had he appealed from the issuance of the OFP, we may have dismissed his appeal as not ripe for review since no violation had occurred.

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”); (Minn. 1

“[R]egardless of the type of proceeding involved, a justiciable controversy must exist in order for a litigant’s claim to be properly before the court.”

See, (concluding there was sufficient evidence male defendant constructively possessed drugs when they were found in a bedroom containing male clothing and papers and a checkbook bearing defendant’s name).

Further, unlike cases where law enforcement found controlled substances in a bedroom with a defendant’s personal items, or defendant’s identifying information on the controlled substance, the only evidence tying the large bong to appellant’s personal possessions is that both items were found in a common room.

See, e.g. , State v. Colsch , ( determining sufficient evidence existed when identifying papers and checkbook were found near drugs).

Id.; (concluding that the evidence was sufficient to prove that defendant constructively possessed drugs found in bedroom where male clothing was found, as well as papers and a checkbook bearing the defendant’s name).

(concluding there was sufficient evidence to prove constructive possession when paperwork identifying the defendant was found near the prohibited item).

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

See, -88 (Minn. 1985); d 805, 812-13 (Minn. App. 2000), review denied (Minn. Jan.

See, e.g., Wiley, d at 270 (concludi ng that defendant constructively possessed drugs when box containing the marijuana displayed the defendant’s name); State v. Colsch , (concluding that defendant constructively possessed drugs when papers identifying the 18 defendant and the defendant’s checkbook were found near the drugs); State v. Carr, 311 Minn. 161, 163, (concluding that defendant constructively possessed drugs whe n information i

(concluding there was sufficient evidence of constructive possession when papers identif ying the defendant and the defendant’s checkbook were found near the drugs); State v. Carr , 311 Minn. 161, 163, d 443, 445 (1976) (concluding there was sufficient evidence of constructive possession

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

A party must show a “direct and imminent injury.” see Lee, 228 Minn. at 111, d at 537 (noting that to invoke a court’s jurisdiction, a party must show actual or imminent injury).

7 (concluding constructive possession of drugs found in a common area of a shared apartment was properly inferred because the defendant had admitted to possessing other drugs); (concluding sufficient evidence for constructive possession existed where drugs were found, in defendant’s residence, among male clothing as well as papers and a checkbook bearing defendant’s name); (concluding sufficient evidence for constructive posses

See, (holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding of constructive possession where controlled substances were 11 found in the defendant’s bedroom); (“The state’s evidence showed that

To establish a justiciable controversy, a party “must show a direct and imminent injury which results from the alleged unconstitutional provision.”

tted possession of the items,7 or there was testimony at trial accusing the defendant of possessing the items.8 By contrast, no direct evidence tied appellant to possession of 5 See, -88 (Minn. 1985) (finding drugs in the defendant’s apartment); (finding drugs in the defendant’s home); (finding drugs in bedroom of defendant’s home); State v. Carr, 311 Minn. 161, 163, (finding drugs in the defendant’s home); State v. Wiley, 295 Minn. 411, 422, -76 (1973) (finding drugs in the place where the defe

(holding that a challenge to a probationary condition permitting warrantless searches of Colsch was not justiciable because a warrantless search had not been conducted).

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

see Lee, 228 Minn, at 111, d at 537 (noting that to invoke court’s jurisdiction, party must show actual or imminent injury).

To establish the existence of a justiciable controversy, the litigant must show a “direct and imminent injury.” see also 1 David F. Herr & Roger S. Haydock, Minnesota Practice § 13.3 (2002) (“Claims maturing after commencement of the action, but before service of the defendant’s answer is due must be pleaded by the defendant.”).

-42 (Minn.1979); see also State ex rel.

(defendant guilty of possession when drugs found in bedroom where defendant kept clothing and other items).

To establish a justiciable controversy, Kennedy must show “a direct and imminent injury which results from the alleged unconstitutional provision.”