Cited by

Barker, d at 354 (“The 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 of contraband.” ); see also State v. Olhausen , 26 (Minn. 2004) (affirming first-degree controlled substance offenses, including possession, where there was a wealth of circumstantial evidence that the defendant had possessed methamphetamine but did not possess the substance when arrested).

(“Despite the fact that respondent disposed of the alleged controlled substance, circumstantial evidence included numerous statements of respondent and his coconspirator about the contents and weight of the package.”).

State v. Olhausen , (“[Appellate courts] use the same standard of review in bench t rials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence.”).

“In consideri ng a claim of insufficient evidence, the record is reviewed t o determine whether the evide nce, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, is sufficient to allow the jurors to reach their verdict.”

-25 (Minn. 2004) (affirming conviction based on actual possession where undercover agent testified that defendant agreed to sell him methamphetamine and later produced package of methamphetamine); (affirming conviction of unlawful possession of firearm based on a

State v. Olhausen , (citations omitted).

at 354; see also State v. Olhausen , 26 (Minn. 2004) (affirming first - degree controlled substance offenses, including possession, where there was a wealth of circumstantial evidence that the defendant had possessed methamphetamine but did not possess the substance when arrested).

“Where direct evidence is not available, a conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be entitled to the same weight as direct evidence.” (quotation omitted).

See State v. Olhausen , (noting that evidence of flight may suggest “consciousness of guilt” when the defendant disposed of contraband after fleeing).

–29 (Minn. 2004) (holding that non -scientific, circumstantial evidence may be presented to prove identity of controlled substance).

See S , 23 -25 (Minn. 2004) (affirming conviction based on undercover agent’s testimony that defendant agreed to sell him methamphetamine and later produced package of methamphetamine); -01 (Minn. App. 2011) ( affirming conviction based on defendan t’s admission to handling and hidin

nce test used above, at the time of arrest, the officers had the following information: (1) Lystad was found in the driver’s seat with the in failing to dismiss a complaint for lack of probable cause made after there has been a trial and a conviction is construed as a claim that the evidence was insufficient to convict.”), rev’d on other grounds .

-91 (Minn. App. 2003), rev’d on other grounds

-91 (Minn. App. 2003), rev’d on other grounds, (holding that plain-error analysis applies to unobjected-to errors committed under rule 26.01, subdivision 4).

The state nevertheless argues that Robinson is readily distinguishable and that this court ought to abide by the Minnesota Supreme Court’s

(determining that “a combination of factors” were sufficient to find defendant “guilty of controlled substance .

More recently, the supreme court has reiterated that the question whether a substance possessed by a defendant is a controlled substance must be determined “on a case-by-case basis.” d 21, 26 (Minn. 2004).

Robertson sold the murder weapon the day after the shooting, told the buyer he had “just shot” the gun so he knew it worked, and later identified the people involved in the sale, (recognizing inculpatory actions taken after a crime was evidence of guilt).

appellant argues that, in a controlled-substance prosecution, proof of the actual identity of the controlled substance is required; the defendant’s belief about the identity of the substance is not sufficient.

-29 (Minn. 2004) (stating that an officer’s opinion is non-scientific evidence of the identity of the substance and flight suggests a consciousness of guilt).

-29 (Minn. 2004) (“[C]ircumstantial evidence and officer testimony may be presented to the jury to attempt to prove the identity of [a] substance.”).

And while it is true that the evidence is circumstantial rather than direct, “[w]hen a defendant is convicted based on circumstantial evidence, the evidence is entitled to the same weight as any evidence so long as the circumstances proved are consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.” (quotation omitted).

-29 (Minn. 2004) (determining that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to prove that the defendant possessed and sold methamphetamine despite the fact that methamphetamine was never found or tested).

-29 (Minn. 2004) (holding that circumstantial evidence regarding a substance’s identity was sufficient to uphold the respondent’s convictions for first-degree controlled substance offenses).

“[C]ircumstantial evidence and officer testimony may be presented to the jury to attempt to prove the identity of [a] substance.” -29 (Minn. 2004).

and arguing that this case does not involve the types of circumstances that have supported convictions of controlled- substance crimes when the identity of the substance was challenged.