Cited by

-61 (Minn. 2015) (determining that there was sufficient direct evidence of constructive possession and that, therefore, there was no need to apply the circumstantial-evidence standard of review).

Even when a criminal statute does not expressly state that knowledge is a requirement, that “statutory silence is typically insufficient to dispense with the mens rea requirement.” (applying a knowledge requirement to Minn. Stat. §§ 609.165, subd.

r (1) that “the police found the [contraband] in a place under the defendant’s exclusive control to which other people normally did not have access” or (2) “that there is a strong probability (inferable from other evidence) that at the time the defendant was consciously or knowingly exercising dominion and control over [the contraband].” Harris, d at 601; -60 (Minn. 2015) (referring to these as Florine’s first and second prongs, respectively).

the inference is strong that the defendant at one time physically possessed the item.” (quotation omitted).

police found the [contraband] in a place under the defendant’s exclusive control to which other people normally did not have access” or (2) by showing “that there is a strong probability (inferable from other evidence) that[,] at the time[,] the defendant was consciously or knowingly exercising dominion and control over [the contraband].” Harris, d at 601; d 156, 160 (Minn. 2015) (referring to these as Florine’s first and second prong, respectively).

aff’d, d 156 (Minn. 2015); WL 2079360, at *3 (Minn. App. May 13, 2019) (holding that, when “police found a significant amount of ammunition, including a magazine, in dresser drawers in [the defendant’s] bedroom, .

(stating that “we have made it clear, at least with respect to the felon-in-possession statute, that knowledge of the prohibited item is required”); (noting, in the context of a sufficiency of the evidence claim, that possession of a firearm by an

The purpose of the constructive-possession doctrine is to include “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 physically possessed the [firearm] and did not abandon his possessory interest in the [firearm].” (quotation omitted).

We seek to “determine whether the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the jury to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” (quotation omitted).

Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subd.

“Possession of a firearm may be proved through actual or constructive possession.”

1(2); (noting that the state must prove that a defendant’s possession of a firearm was knowing).

may be proved through actual or constructive possession.” State v. Salyers, 7

Here, the legal framework for constructive possession accounts for scenarios where contraband is “in a place to which others had access.” d 156, 159 (Minn. 2015) (quotation omitted).

[another] factor relevant to establishing constructive possession.”

[another] factor relevant to establishing constructive possession, [but] it is not the sole factor or necessarily even the most important factor.” d 156, 159 (Minn. 2015).

ge of section 609.667(2), this court has held that “the legislature intended the firearm-without-a-serial-number statute to encompass all firearms[,]” reasoning that “there is no need for case-by-case proof of a gun-specific serial- number requirement because section 5842 requires all firearms to have a serial number.” aff’d on other grounds

In 2015, the supreme court acknowledged that section 609.165, subdivision 1b(a), the statute at issue here, does not “expressly state that knowledge of possession is a requirement,” but that “statutory silence is typically insufficient to dispense with the mens rea requirement.”

The state can prove appellant’s guilt by establishing appellant’s “actual or constructive possession.”

In addition , “knowledge of the prohibited item is required .” State v Salyers

Constructive possession exists “where the inference is strong that the defendant at one time physically possessed” an item and “continued to exercise dominion and control over it up to the time of the arrest.” ().

n.3 (Minn. 2015) (“[A] person may possess property even if another person owns that property.”).

continued to exercise dominion and control over it up to the time of the arrest.” ().

d 156, 161 (Minn. 2015).

“Possession of a firearm may be proved through actual or constructive possession.”

State v. Salyers , -61 (Minn. 2015).