Cited by

“Proximity is an important consideration in assessing constructive possession.” rev. denied (Minn. Jan.

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.

-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.

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 v. Smith , 0 (Minn. App. 2000) (“[C]onstructive possession need not be exclusive, but may be shared.”), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.

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.

“Proximity is an important consideration in assessing constructive possession.” rev. denied (Minn. Jan.

“[P]roximity is an important consideration in assessing constructive possession.” rev. denied (Minn. Jan.

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.

“Proximity is an important consideration in assessing constructive possession.” rev. denied (Minn. Jan.

While the defendant’s proximity to the controlled substance is an important factor in establishing constructive possession, rev. denied (Minn. Jan.

“Proximity is an important consideration in assessing constructive possession.” State v. Smith , rev. denied (Minn. Jan.

“[C]onstructive possession need not be exclusive, but may be shared.” rev. denied (Minn. Jan.

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.

To prove that Elder possessed the firearm, the state must show that he “physically had the handgun on his person.” rev. denied (Minn. Jan.

“[C]onstructive possession need not be exclusive, but may be shared.” rev. denied (Minn. Jan.

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.

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.

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.

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.

“Proximity is an important consideration in assessing constructive possession.” review denied (Minn. Jan.

State v. Smith , review denied (Minn. Jan.

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.

-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.

review denied (Minn. Jan.

- 69 (Minn. App. 2000), review denied (Minn. Jan.

Actual possession “require[s] proof that appellant physically had the [weapon] on his person.” State v. Smith , review denied (Minn. Jan.

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

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.

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.

(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 v. Smith , review denied (Minn. Jan.

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.

Actual possession requires “proof that [the defendant] physically had the [firearm] on his person.” 4 review denied (Minn. Jan.

review denied (Minn. Jan.

State v. Barker , (quotation omitted); review denied (Minn. Jan.

held that a defendant may constructively possess a firearm if he placed the firearm where it was discovered.” review denied (Minn. Jan.

review denied (Minn. Jan.

“A conviction based on circumstantial evidence warrants stricter scrutiny.” review denied (Minn. Jan.