Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State of Minnesota v. Tommy Salyers, III, 858 N.W.2d 156.

180 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Bounkieng Sinthavong Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“Possession of a firearm may be proved through actual or constructive possession.”
State of Minnesota v. Norbert Pius D’Cruz Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Cermor Rio Boakai Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State v. Salyers , -61 (Minn. 2015).
State of Minnesota v. Freddie Tyrone Dudley Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Steven Vincent Pierce Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Terrvante Rennicko Hicks Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Cf. State v. Salyers , (discu ssing firearm possession).
State of Minnesota v. Wayland Deshawn Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Jayson John Rogahn Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Leonard Steven Sanchez Minn. Ct. App. 2021
1b(a) (2018); (recognizing the mens rea element ).
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Allen Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Semaj Maurice Dow, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
37 (Minn. App. 2014) , aff’d, 1 Similarly, in State v. Watson, the defendant was convicted of ineligible person in possession of a firearm, and possession of a firearm on which the serial number had been obliterated.
State of Minnesota v. Boyd Jerome Morson, II Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(“[A] person may possess property even if another person owns that property.”).
Benjamin Joseph Hill v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Derek Alan Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Possession “may be proved through actual or constructive possession.”
State of Minnesota v. Cordero Jarrod Phillips Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Robert James Yernatich Minn. Ct. App. 2020
8 (d 609, 611 (Minn. 1975)).
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Lamar Newsom, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
1(2) (2016).3 “Possession of a firearm may be proved through actual or constructive possession.”
State of Minnesota v. Eli Samuel Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
d 156, 160 (Minn. 2015).
State of Minnesota v. William Dumont White Minn. Ct. App. 2020
The pur pose of the constructive-possession doctrine is to include within the firearm -possession statute those cases “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] but rather continued to exercise dominion and control over it up to the time of the arrest.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jose Eduardo Medina Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 156, 159 (Minn. 2015).
State of Minnesota v. Tamico Annette Reed Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Although misleading the jury about the law is plain error and constitutes prosecutorial misconduct, State v. Salyers , aff’d, it is presumed that juries follow instructions.
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Michael Wilson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Semaj Maurice Dow, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
3; aff’d, State v. Winbush , n.3 (Minn. App. 2 018), review denied (Minn. May 29, 2018).
State of Minnesota v. Tad Isaac Butcher Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Minn Stat. § 609.67, subds.
State of Minnesota v. Troy Michael Wierson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Troy William Hinds Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Herman Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
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.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Kaylen Demond Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(holding that the circumstan tial-evidence standard of review need not be applied when direct evidence est ablishes the challenged element).
State of Minnesota v. Robert Jamar Casey Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. German 929 N.W.2d 466 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. German 929 N.W.2d 466 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Salyers , , 160 (Minn. 2015) (establishing constructive possession by direct evidence); State v. Sam , , 832 (Minn. App. 2015) (establishing constructive possession by circumstantial evidence).
State of Minnesota v. David Alan Nielsen Minn. Ct. App. 2019
5 “Possession of a firearm may be proved through actual or constructive possession.”
State of Minnesota v. Desean Demetrius Crayton Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Mohamed Muqtar Jaranow Minn. Ct. App. 2019
7 Salyers, (holding that heightened standard of review was not applicable because the challenged element was established by direct evidence).
Troy William Drusch v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Jerrod Daylyn Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Harris, d at 601 -02; State v. Salyers , -60 (Minn. 2015).
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Albert Schally Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 156, 159 (Minn. 2015).
Dementry James Loyd v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(applying the same standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence to both bench and jury trials).
State of Minnesota v. Peang Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Possession of a firearm may be proved through actual or constructive possession.”
State of Minnesota v. Kenny Lashaun Robertson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Jeffery Robert Kampsula Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Devontay Deshaun Hines Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Possession of a firearm may be proved through actual or constructive possession.”
State of Minnesota v. Jason Owen Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(declining to apply the circumstantial-evidence standard of review because direct evidence sufficiently supported the guilty verdict).
State of Minnesota v. Jose Alarcon, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 156, 161 (Minn. 2015).
State of Minnesota v. Antwan James Woods Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Ricky Lee Collins, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The issue for a reviewing court is “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.” (citations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Scott Hacken Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Salyers , d 156, 161 (Minn. 2015).
State of Minnesota v. Jeriod David Knerr Minn. Ct. App. 2018
7 (quoting State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 105, ).
State of Minnesota v. Robert Darrell Boettcher Minn. Ct. App. 2018
2(a)(1) (2014), which criminalizes possession of “one or more mixtures of a total weight of six grams or more containing cocaine, heroin, or methamphetamine.” Possession of contraband “may be proved through actual or constructive possession.”
State of Minnesota v. Randy Donald Reed Minn. Ct. App. 2018
n.3 (Minn. 2015) (“[A] person may possess property even if another person owns that property.”).