Cited by

Possession of contraband “may be pr oved through actual or constructive possession.” State v. Salyers

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

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

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.” State v. Salyers , (quotation 5 omitted).

This renders the search of the cabinet appropriate.”), aff’d

-59 (Minn. 2015) (“The issue of whether the court of appeals properly applied Minnesota’s constructive-possession doctrine to possession of firearms inside a locked safe is a question of law that we review de novo.”).

Under the traditional standard of review, we “view the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict 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.’” ().

d 156, 159 (Minn. 2015) (“Possession of a firearm may be proved through actual or constructive possession.”).

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

The Minnesota Supreme Court has said that, in order to obtain a conviction under Minn. Stat. § 624.713, the state must prove that an ineligible person possessed a firearm with “knowledge of the prohibited item.”

Minnesota firearm possession statutes have been interpreted to require the state to prove the defendant’s “knowledge of the prohibited item.”

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

-61 (Minn. 2015) (noting that the state established exclusive control by direct evidence where a gun was found in a bedroom safe in defendant’s home, and applying circumstantial-evidence standard was unnecessary).

-61 (Minn. 2015); n.2 (Minn. 2010).

e in a place under [appellant’s] exclusive control to which other people did not normally have access,” or (2) “if police found [the substance] in a place to which others had access, there is a strong probability (inferable from other evidence) that [appellant] was at the time consciously exercising dominion and control over it.” Florine, 303 Minn. at 105, d at 611

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

DECISION When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, appellate courts determine “whether the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the [fact-finder] to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” (quotations omitted).

We conclude that “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).

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

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 1 As a preliminary responsive argument, the state argues that Yackel’s appeal should be dismissed on the ground that she did not file her brief on a timely basis.

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).

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