Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Ali, 775 N.W.2d 914.

49 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
As it relates to both offenses, “[p]ossession crimes require proof that the defendant had actual knowledge of the nature of the substance in his possession.” rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Because “[k]nowledge is customarily determined from circumstantial evidence,” rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Mitchell David Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Mitchell David Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Samuel James Lyons Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Samuel James Lyons Minn. Ct. App. 2023
The supreme court stated that, “in order to convict a defendant of unlawful possession of a controlled substance, the state must prove that defendant consciously possessed, either physically or constructively, the substance and that defendant had actual knowledge of the nature of the substance.” Id.; (holding that “for possession of cathinone based on possession of khat, the state need not prove that the defendant knew the scientific description of the drug in his possession; proof that he knew
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
2(1), a person is guilty of fifth-degree possession of a controlled substance if they “unlawfully possess[] one or more mixtures containing a controlled substance classified in Schedule I, II, III, or IV.” “Possession crimes require proof that the defendant had actual knowledge of the nature of the substance in his possession.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(stating that drug-possession crimes require proof of actual knowledge of the na ture of the substance), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
19, 2013); State v. Ali , , review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Ali , review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The parties’ agreement is reasonable because “[k]nowledge is customarily determined from circumstantial evidence.” review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 914, 919 (Minn. App. 2009), review denied ( M i n n .
Theodore Pierre Jerry, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Ali , review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Knowledge is customarily determined from circumstantial evidence.” State v. Ali , review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
-28 (Minn. 2011) (stating that an analysis of whether offenses arise from a single behavioral incident depends first on whether any of the crimes have an intent element); d 411, 412-13 (Minn. 1979) (stating that DWI is a nonintentional crime for purposes of Minn. Stat. § 609.035); (stating that fifth - degree controlled-substance crime is treated as an intentional crime), review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Convictions of these two counts require proof that the defendant “had actual knowledge of the nature of the substance in his possession.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Ali , review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
9 (Minn. App. 2009), review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(stating that knowledge is generally proved by circumstantial evidence), review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
9 (Minn. App. 2009), review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
And c rimes of possession require proof that the defendant had “actual knowledge of the nature of the substance.” d 914, 918 (Minn. App. 2009), review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
the substance and that defendant had actual knowledge of the nature of the substance.” State v. Florine , 303 Minn. 103, 104, see also State v. Ali , review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Robert Joseph Engen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Robert Joseph Engen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Charles Steven Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Charles Steven Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Possession crimes require proof that the defendant had actual knowledge of the nature of the substance in his possession.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Michael William Kirby Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Michael William Kirby Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“Knowledge is customarily determined from circumstantial evidence.”), review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Cory Cork Ryden Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Cory Cork Ryden Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Possession crimes require proof that the defendant had actual knowledge of the nature of the substance in his possession.”
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Dean Kruse Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Dean Kruse Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104, review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Stephanie JoNell Guscette Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Stephanie JoNell Guscette Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Elson Randall Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Elson Randall Minn. Ct. App. 2014
review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Otto Boyum Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Otto Boyum Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See id.; review denied (Minn. Feb.
State v. Hansen 805 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Hansen 805 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
“To comport with due process, criminal statutes must provide defendants with ‘fair warning’ by defining crimes clearly enough that an ordinary person can understand what conduct is prohibited.” (-91 (Minn.1992)).
State v. Ahmed 791 N.W.2d 296 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Ahmed 791 N.W.2d 296 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
contains cathine and cathinone, both controlled substances under Minnesota law.’ ” (Ali II).