Cited by

In State v. Dickey, we held that constructive possession can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt if the contraband is located (1) “near papers and personal documents bearing the suspect’s name”; (2) “close to the suspect’s clothing or personal property”; or (3) “in a room used as a bedroom by the suspect.” (holding that defendant had constructive possession over contraband kept in a closet near her clothing).

” rev. denied (Minn. June 13, 2000).

(concluding that circumstantial evidence was sufficient to show spouses’ joint constructive possession of contraband when it was discovered in common areas of home), rev. denied (Minn. June 13, 2000).

with others.” rev. denied (Minn. June 13, 2000).11 The state points 11 Appellant correctly observes that the state did not request a jury instruction on joint - constructive possession.

rev. denied (Minn. June 13, 2000).

See State v. Denison , (affirming conviction for possession of marijuana recovered from common spaces in close proximity to defendant’s personal effects), review denied (Minn. June 13, 2000).

State v. Denison , review denied (Minn. June 13, 2000).

15 Similarly, in State v. Denison, law enforcement found marijuana “located in close proximity” to the defendant’s “personal effects” and in areas where she “likely exercised at least joint dominion and control.” review denied (Minn. June 13, 2000).

review denied (Minn. June 13, 2000).

“A person is guilty of possession of a controlled substance if she knew the nature of the substance and either physically or constructively possessed it.”

(explaining that the fact that a witness has been convicted of a felony tends to prove a “genera l lack of respect for the law,” thus making that witness less credible; the court’s reasoning only makes sense if the fact of conviction tends to prove that the witness actually vio lated the law); (discussing evidence of a pr ior conviction for marijuana possession as evide nce that the person convicted once possessed illegal drugs), review denied (Minn. June 13, 2000); - 52 (Minn. App. 1986) (holdi

See (“Proximity is an important factor when establishing constructive possession.”); (reasoni ng that the close proximity of a banned substance near the defendant was a factor pe rmitting a jury to infer she had constructive possession of the substance).

“A person may constructively possess a controlled substance alone or with others.” review denied (Minn. June 13, 2000).

possession.” - 81 (Minn. 1986) (concluding that the eviden ce was sufficient to establish defendant’s constructive possession of cocaine, despite his girlfriend’s testimony that it was hers, when the cocaine was found on the ground at a car crash, inches from defendant’s wallet); (explaining that the proximity of the drugs to defendant’s personal effects supported the inference that defendant possessed the drugs), review denied (Minn. June 13, 2000).

16, 2010); review denied (Minn. June 13, 2000).

See, State v. Mollberg, 310 Minn. 376, 390, review denied (Minn. June 13, 2000).

“A person may constructively possess a controlled substance alone or with others.” review denied (Minn. June 13, 2000).

We examine the totality of the circumstances when “assessing whether or not constructive possession has been proved.” d 796, 800 (Minn. App. 2000), review denied (Minn. June 13, 2000).

A person may constructively possess a controlled substance alone or with others.” (citation omitted).

1979) (defendant constructively possessed narcotics found, along with a passport, in his bedroom in a mobile home defendant jointly leased with a friend); State v. Mollberg, 310 Minn. 376, 390, (defendant constructively possessed marijuana found in bedroom along with letters addressed to defendant and the front end of defendant’s motorcycle); (defendant constructively possessed marijuana found inside closet in home she shared with her husband), review denied (Minn. June 13, 2000).

“We look to the totality of the circumstances in assessing whether or not constructive possession has been proved.” review denied (Minn. June 13, 2000).

review denied (Minn. June 13, 2000).

(concluding that the evidence was sufficient to prove constructive possession where, among other evidence, “[s]ome of the marijuana was located in a closet where Ms. Denison kept her clothing”), review denied (Minn. June 13, 2000).

State v. Mollberg, 310 Minn. 376, 390 , State v. LaBarre, 292 Minn. 228, 232-33, 237 , 441 (1972); review denied (Minn. June 13, 2000).

Although we emphasized the distinction, we expressly declined to decide “[wjhether or not there [is] a substantive difference between ‘dominion’ and ‘control.’” Id.; (“A person may constructively possess a controlled substance alone or with others.”), review denied (Minn. Jun.

-800 (Minn.App.2000) (explaining the constructive-possession doctrine), review denied (Minn. June 13, 2000).

review denied (Minn. June 13, 2000).