Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State of Minnesota v. Demarcus Lemaine Barker, 888 N.W.2d 348.

87 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Derek Alan Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“Actual possession, also referred to as physical possession, involves direct physical control.” (quotation omitted).
Benjamin Joseph Hill v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“Actual possession, also referred to as physical possession, involves direct physical control.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Cordero Jarrod Phillips Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Adam Eldon Switala Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. John Lee Bartel Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Jose Eduardo Medina Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Troy Michael Wierson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Actual possession involves “direct physical control.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Abdiqadar Salah Kasim Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Actual possession is defined as “direct physical control.” State v. Barker , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Gregorio Zuniga-Vallejo Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Actual possession is defined as “direct physical control.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Paul Mattson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“ A c t u a l p o s s e s s i o n , a l s o r e f e r r ed to as physical possession, involves ‘direct physical control.’” State v. Barker , (quoting Jacobson v. Aetna Cas.
State of Minnesota v. David Alan Nielsen Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Actual posses sion, also referred to as physical possession, involves ‘direct physical control.’” State v. Barker , d 348, 353 (Minn. App. 2016) (quoting Jacobson v. Aetna Cas.
State of Minnesota v. Desean Demetrius Crayton Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Actual possession involves “dire ct physical control.” (quoting Jacobson v. Aetna Cas.
State of Minnesota v. Demarcus Lemaine Barker Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The state asserts that this case is only about actual possession, which this court defines as “direct physical control.” State v. Barker , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Alyssa Rose Knoblauch Minn. Ct. App. 2019
1(1), the prosecution “may appeal a dismissal for lack of probable cause only if the dismissal is based on questions of law.” -53 (Minn. App. 2016) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Peang Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Actual possession, also referred to as physical possession, involves ‘direct physical control.’” State v. Barker , d 348, 353 (Minn. App. 2016) (quoting Jacobson v. Aetna Cas.
State of Minnesota v. Kenny Lashaun Robertson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Sahra Abdilahi Ahmed Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“When the state appeals a pre- trial order, we will only reverse if the state clearly and unequivocally shows (1) that the ruling was erroneous and (2) that the order will have a critical impact on its ability to prosecute the case.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Devontay Deshaun Hines Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Actual possession, also referred to as physical possession, involves ‘direct physical control.’” State v. Barker , d 348, 353 (Minn. App. 2016) (quoting Jacobson v. Aetna Cas.
State of Minnesota v. Michael Anthony Thurstin Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“The mere fact that an item is not in a defendant’s physical possession at the time of appr ehension does not preclude prosecution for actual possession of contraband.”
State of Minnesota v. Phillip Edward Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
However, “[t]he mere fact that an item is not in a defendant’s physical possession at the time of apprehension does not preclude prose cution for actual possession.”
State of Minnesota v. Deshawn Nairfe Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Misty Rose Ann Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Barker , (Minn .
State v. Gayles 915 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Gayles 915 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Peck , , 770 n.1 (Minn. 2009) ; see State v. Barker , , 354 (Minn. App. 2016) (indicating that probable cause may be based on circumstantial evidence).
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Scott Hacken Minn. Ct. App. 2018
However, this court has held that “[t]he mere fact that an item is not in a defendant ’s physical possession at the time of apprehension does not preclude prosecution for actual possession.”
State of Minnesota v. Jeriod David Knerr Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(reversing district court’s order dismissing charges for lack of probable cause).
State of Minnesota v. Robert Darrell Boettcher Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Establishing constructive possession requires either “proof that the item was in a place under the defendant’s exclusive control to which other people did not normally have access” or “proof of a strong probability that the defendant was at the 7 time consciously exercising dominion and control over it, even if the item was in a place to which others had access.” -54 (Minn. App. 2016) (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Peter Pohl Minn. Ct. App. 2018
1(1), the prosecution “may appeal a dismissal for lack of probable cause only if the dismissal is based on questions of law.” State v. Barker , -53 (Minn. App. 2016) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Kenneth James Harrison, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Possession may either be actual or constructive.”
State of Minnesota v. Bryan Alan Bemboom Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The state responds to Bemboom’s .
State of Minnesota v. Kelly Lynn Wise Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. James Alan Hanson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Possession may be either actual or constructive.”
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Eugene Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
However, this court has previously clarified that “[t]he mere fact that an item is not in a defendant’s physical possession at the time of apprehension does not preclude prosecution for actual possession.”
State of Minnesota v. Raymon Freeman Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Barker , (quotation omitted); review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Dustin Spencer Casey Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Roland Lee Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Actual possession, also referred to as physical possession, involves direct physical control.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Adam Oltz Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See id.; (“Actual possession, also referred to as physical posse ssion, involves direct physical control.” (quotation omitted)); State v. 6 Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 105, (“ [I]n order to prove constructive possession the stat e should have to show (a) that the police found t