Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Willis, 320 N.W.2d 726.

37 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Raenard Romalle Douglas Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Raenard Romalle Douglas Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
To establish constructive possession the state must prove the defendant “consciously exercised dominion and control over [the firearm].” State v. Willis , -29 (Minn. 1982).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See, (corroborated informant’s tip); (handgun in plain view); d 803, 805-08 (Minn. 1979) (furtive gestures of occupants); d 509, 510-11 (Minn. 1973) (odor of burnt marijuana).
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Starnes Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Starnes Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(recognizing that when a defendant acts suspiciously, as if trying to conceal something, the defendant’s failure to provide an explanation may increase an officer’s grounds for suspicion).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
-28 (Minn. 1982) (stating that a police officer’s observation of “part of a handgun” in open view gave the officer probable cause to search a vehicle).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
To establish constructive possession the state must prove the defendant “consciously exercised dominion and control over [the firearm].” -29 (Minn. 1982).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
at 610-11; - 29 (Minn. 1982) (stati ng that, under the constructive-possession doctrine, “the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that, although not in actual or physical possession of the item at the tim e of arrest, the defendant consciously exercised dominion and control over it”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Willis , (upholdi ng search of a vehicle where police officer observed, in plain view, a firearm); see also State v. Lester , (stating that, under the “automobile exception,” police “may search a car without a warrant, including closed contai ners in that car, if there is
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
.7 (Minn. 2004) (affirming conviction of unlawful possession of firearm based on evidence that stolen firearms and marijuana were stored in defendant’s garage); State v. Olson , d 661, 662-63 (Minn. 1982) (affirming conviction of unlawful possession of firearm based on evidence that loaded firearm was found “within rea ch of where defendant had been seated” in car); -29 (Minn. 1982) (affirming conviction of unlawful possession of firearm based on evidence that firearm was found under seat in car
State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Clyde Griffin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Robert Jamal Poole Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Distinguished State of Minnesota v. Robert Jamal Poole Minn. Ct. App. 2016
–63 (Minn. 1982) (citing Florine and noting that Olson “consciously exercised” control over a firearm, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 624.713); –29 (Minn. 1982) (same).
Distinguished State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Clyde Griffin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See, (citing Florine and noting that Olson “consciously exercised” control over a firearm, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 624.713); (same).
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
See, n.7 (Minn. 2004); State v. 5 Robinson, -29 (Minn. 1982).
State v. Williams 794 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 2011
State v. Williams 794 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 2011
Compare Timberlake, d at 392, 397 (holding that reliable informant’s report that a gun was in a ear provided a reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop that car), (“Standing where he had a right to stand ...
State v. Flowers 734 N.W.2d 239 Minn. 2007
State v. Flowers 734 N.W.2d 239 Minn. 2007
The dissent’s support for this proposition is State v. Willis, a case in *250 which we recognized that such answers may “inerease[ ] the [officers’] grounds for suspicion.”
State v. Porter 674 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Porter 674 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
-29 (Minn.1982) (applying Florine constructive-possession standards to firearm charges); State v. Carr, 311 Minn. 161, 162-63 , -45 (1976) (applying Florine constructive-possession standards to controlled-substance charges).
Salcido-Perez v. State 615 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Salcido-Perez v. State 615 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
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. Payne 403 N.W.2d 273 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Payne 403 N.W.2d 273 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Cusick 387 N.W.2d 179 Minn. 1986
State v. Cusick 387 N.W.2d 179 Minn. 1986
(holding that state’s evidence established that defendant constructively possessed gun found in car in which he was one of two passengers where before stop officer saw defendant make furtive movement and gun was under seat where defendant was seated).'
State v. Quast 381 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Quast 381 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Pierce 347 N.W.2d 829 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Pierce 347 N.W.2d 829 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Liljedahl 327 N.W.2d 27 Minn. 1982
State v. Liljedahl 327 N.W.2d 27 Minn. 1982
330 , 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977)