Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Smith, 619 N.W.2d 766.

86 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Lex Phaengdara Minn. Ct. App. 2026
und the substance in a place under defendant’s exclusive control to which other people did not normally have access,” or, if police found the item “in a place to which others had access,” that “there is a strong probability (inferable from other evidence) that defendant was at the time consciously exercising dominion and control over it.” Florine, d at 611; (“Essentially, the constructive possession doctrine permits a conviction where the state cannot prove actual possession, but the inference i
State of Minnesota v. Pierre Omar Combs Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“Proximity is an important consideration in assessing constructive possession.” rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Edward Alexander Cox Minn. Ct. App. 2026
The state proves constructive possession in cases in which it “cannot prove actual possession, but the inference is strong that the defendant physically possessed 6 the [contraband] at one time and did not abandon [their] possessory interest in it.” rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Joseph Casserly Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Joseph Casserly Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-71 (Minn. App. 2000) (affirming conviction of constructive possession of a firearm in a car based on evidence that the firearm was in proximity to the defendant and the defendant was the sole occupant of the car), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Lawrence Edward Walker McDowell Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Unlike actual possession, proof of constructive possession “permits a conviction where the state cannot prove actual possession, but the inference is strong that the defendant physically possessed the item at one time and did not abandon his possessory interest in it.” d 766, 770 (Minn. App. 2000), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Jimmie Dunlap, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Nathaniel Mark Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State v. Smith , 0 (Minn. App. 2000) (“[C]onstructive possession need not be exclusive, but may be shared.”), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Carlos Ramone Sargent Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In contrast, constructive possession occurs when there is a strong inference that “the defendant physically possessed the item at one time and did not abandon his possessory interest in it.” rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Shaketio Antonio Webster Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“Proximity is an important consideration in assessing constructive possession.” rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. James Jeffrey Bacon Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“[P]roximity is an important consideration in assessing constructive possession.” rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Jerry Ray Apel Minn. Ct. App. 2024
To obtain an unlawful-possession-of-a-firearm conviction under Minnesota Statutes section 624.713, “the state must establish either actual or constructive possession of a firearm.” , rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Juan Antonio Ruiz Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“Proximity is an important consideration in assessing constructive possession.” rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Terry Allen Stewart Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Terry Allen Stewart Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. James Dean Olson, II Minn. Ct. App. 2023
While the defendant’s proximity to the controlled substance is an important factor in establishing constructive possession, rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. David Busch Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“Proximity is an important consideration in assessing constructive possession.” State v. Smith , rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Merwin Andrew Coleman Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Dak Luk Ret Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“[C]onstructive possession need not be exclusive, but may be shared.” rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Jermaine Kershawn Perry Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Corey Lynden Stone Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Unlike actual possession, proof of constructive possession “permits a conviction where the state cannot prove actual possession, but the inference is strong that the defendant physically possessed the item at one time and did not abandon his possessory interest in it.” d 766, 770 (Minn. App. 2000), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Israel Frederick Elder Minn. Ct. App. 2022
To prove that Elder possessed the firearm, the state must show that he “physically had the handgun on his person.” rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Richard Alan Quarles Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“[C]onstructive possession need not be exclusive, but may be shared.” rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Bounkieng Sinthavong Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Alexander Taylor Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Steven Vincent Pierce Minn. Ct. App. 2021
As the state observes, the circumstances of this case are similar to the facts underlying this court’s decision in State v. Smith , review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Terrvante Rennicko Hicks Minn. Ct. App. 2021
But constructive possession is present when “the inference is strong that the 8 defendant physically possessed the item at one time and did not abandon his possessory interest in it.” (citing Florine, d at 610), review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Liban Khalif Abdirahman Minn. Ct. App. 2020
When the state cannot pr ove actual possession of an illicit item, the constructive-possession doctrine permits a conviction if “the inference is strong that the defendant physically possessed the item at one time and did not abandon his possessory 10 interest in it.” State v. Smith , review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Liban Khalif Abdirahman Minn. Ct. App. 2020
The doct rine of constructive possession allows for the state to establish po ssession where “the inference is strong that the defendant physically possessed the item at one time and did not abandon his possessory interest in it.” State v. Smith , review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Derek Alan Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“Proximity is an important consideration in assessing constructive possession.” review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Lamar Newsom, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State v. Smith , review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Troy Michael Wierson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The constructive-possession doctrine allows a co nviction where the state cannot prove actual possession, but “the inference is strong th at the defendant physically possessed the item at one time and did not abandon his possesso ry interest in it.” review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Ochan Yien Minn. Ct. App. 2019
-71 (Minn. App. 2000) (affirming conviction where officers found defendant passed out in rental car, a gun sticking out beneath his leg, and defendant claimed that he had never seen the gun), review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Aleshia Lynn Becklund Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. David Alan Nielsen Minn. Ct. App. 2019
- 69 (Minn. App. 2000), review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Michael Anthony Thurstin Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Actual possession “require[s] proof that appellant physically had the [weapon] on his person.” State v. Smith , review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Antwan James Woods Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Actual possession requires “proof that [the defendant] physically had the [gun] on his person,” State v. Smith , while constructive possession requires proof that there is a strong probability, inferable from the evidence, that the defendant consciously exercised dominion and control over the firearm 7 at the time of arrest, see State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 105
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Michael Beach Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The constructive-possession doctrine allows a conviction to stand where the state cannot prove actual possession, but where “the inference is strong that the defendant physically possessed the item at one time and did not abandon his po ssessory interest in it.” review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Octavio Peralta Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The constructive-possession doctrine allows a conviction where the state cannot prove actual possession, but where “the inference is strong that the defendant physically possessed the item at one time and did not abandon his possessory inte rest in it.” State v. Smith , review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Bryan Alan Bemboom Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(Minn. 1982) (affirming conviction of unlawful possession of firearm based on evidence that loaded firearm was found “within rea ch of where defendant had been seated” in car); -29 (Minn. 1982) (affirming conviction of unlawful possession of firearm based on evidence that firearm was found under seat in car where defendant had been sitting); -71 (Minn. App. 2000) (affirming conviction of unlawful possession of firearm based on evidence that firearm was found under defendant’s leg while he slept
State of Minnesota v. Kelly Lynn Wise Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Smith , review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Chue Feng Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The constructive-possession doctrine allows a conviction where the state cannot prove actual possession, but where “the inference is strong that the 7 defendant physically possessed the item at one time and did not abandon his possessory interest in it.” State v. Smith , review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Devante Lemuel Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Actual possession requires “proof that [the defendant] physically had the [firearm] on his person.” 4 review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Scott Marlin Morey Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Raymon Freeman Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Barker , (quotation omitted); review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Fernell Damon Nickson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
held that a defendant may constructively possess a firearm if he placed the firearm where it was discovered.” review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Demarcus Lemaine Barker 888 N.W.2d 348 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Demarcus Lemaine Barker 888 N.W.2d 348 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Jan.
Lana Dawn Hansch Barnes v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Delonte Ahshone Thomas Minn. Ct. App. 2016