Cited by

See, d 145, 150- 51 (Minn. 2009) (explaining joint constructive possession); (stating that possession charges encompass theories of independent and joint possession); (stating that circumstantial evidence may prove constructive possession).

-88 (Minn. 1985) (holding that simply occupying a dwelling in which contraband is found does not constitute possession of contraband, that possession of contraband is not always limited to a single person, and that two or more people can jointly possess contraband).

Separate search warrants are not required in situations of “community occupation” when two or more peo ple “occupy the premises in common rather than individually, as where they share common living quarters but have separate bedrooms.” State v. Lorenz , -87 (Minn. 1985) (quotations omitted).

-88 (Minn. 1985) (holding that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of possessing contraband under the state’s theory of actual or constructive joint possession); 10 Minnesota Practice, CRIMJIG 8.01 (2015 ) (stating possession is joint if two or more persons share actual or constructive possess

- 88 (Minn. 1985) (concluding that the evidence was sufficient to infer that the defendant jointly possessed marijuana found in the defendant’s bedroom in an apartment defendant shared with a roommate).

Coleman’s does not persuade us otherwise.

omitted material information about Mr. Burrell, other tenants, or the manner of house they intended to search.” Appellant claims the search warrant was invalid because the residence was a multiple-occupancy dwelling and “a search warrant for a ‘multiple occupancy building’ is 5 invalid unless it describes the particular unit to be searched with su fficient definiteness.”

Id.; -88 (Minn. 1985) (determining that evidence was sufficient to prove defendant’s joint possession with ro ommate where marijuan a was found in the shared kitchen).

“The general rule [in Minnesota] is that a search warrant for a multiple occupancy building is invalid unless it describes the particular unit to be searched with sufficient definiteness.” State v. Lorenz , (qu otation omitted).

see also Harris, d at 602-03 (concluding that evidence was insufficient to prove that driver possessed handgun lodged into headlining near sunroof when there were two other passengers in the car).

Moreover, a defendant “may constructively possess contraband jointly with another person.” n.7 (Minn. 2004); d 284, 287-88 (Minn. 1985) (concluding evidence sufficient to infer defendant jointly possessed marijuana found in defendant’s bedroom with owner of the house).

The state argues that the supreme court rejected a

State v. Lorenz , , 286 (Minn. 1985) (quotations omitted).

at 676 ; see also State v. Lorenz , , 286-87 (Minn. 1985) ; State v. DeSchoatz , 280 Minn. 3 , , 521-22 (1968).

See, -88 (Minn. 1985); d 805, 812-13 (Minn. App. 2000), review denied (Minn. Jan.

See, e.g., State v. Lorenz , -88 (Minn. 1985) (holding that cocaine discovered in defendan t’s dresser in his bedroom in apartment he shared with another was suffi cient to establish defendant’ s constructive possession of 10 cocaine).

See, - 81 (Minn. 1986) (affirming conviction based on evidence that cocaine was found on ground near defendant’s wallet after car accident); -88 (Minn. 1985) (affirming conviction based on evidence that marijuana was found in kitchen closet and that cocai ne was found in defendant’s bedroom in apartment shared with another); State v. Wiley , , 270-71 (Minn. 1985) ( affirming conviction based on evidence that marijuana and defendant’s

317 n.7 (Minn. 2004); -86 (Minn. 1985) (concluding that the evidence was sufficient to infer that the defendant jointly possessed the marijuana found in the defendant’s bedroom with the owner of the house).

7 (concluding constructive possession of drugs found in a common area of a shared apartment was properly inferred because the defendant had admitted to possessing other drugs); (concluding sufficient evidence for constructive possession existed where dr

Either the items were found in the defendant’s home,5 effects identifying the defendant were found near or on the items,6 the defendant admitted possession of the items,7 or there was testimony at trial accusing the defendant of possessing the items.8 By contrast, no direct evidence tied appellant to possession of 5 See, -88 (Minn. 1985) (finding drugs in the defendant’s apartment); (finding drugs in the defendant’s home); (finding drugs in bedroom of defendant’s home); State v. Carr, 311 Minn.

See, (defendant constructively possessed cocaine discovered in bedroom shared with another; defendant also constructively possessed marijuana discovered in common area of apartment, either as sole or joint possessor, in view of other evidence tying marijuana to defendant)

(trial court correctly refused to compel disclosure or hold in camera hearing); -96 (Minn.1978) (trial court correctly refused to order disclosure of informant where no showing was made of false statements in affidavit).

We have dealt with the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence to establish constructive possession of drugs in a number of cases, including: (the fact that cocaine was discovered in defendant’s dresser in his bedroom in apartment he shared with another was sufficient to establish defendant’s constructive possession of cocaine; marijuana discovered in common area of apartment was also sufficiently connected to defendant, either as sole possessor