Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Robinson, 517 N.W.2d 336.

40 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Appellant references only one circumstance proved in reference to his alternative hypothesis: the fact that the pills “were marked as and looked like Percocet.” For support, but that case is inapposite.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State v. Papadakis , - 40 (Minn. 1994) (reversing conviction because scientific evidence of weight —an element of the charged offense —was insufficient because of inadequate random sampling) ; (“If an alleged offense depends on proof of a numerical threshold, that threshold is ‘
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2023
(explaining that if an alleged offense includes a numerical threshold, that threshold is “an essential element of the offense charged” that “must be proven by the state and proven beyond a reasonable doubt”).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2021
Fugalli essentially asks us to read section 152.021, subdivision 1(3), as follows: “A person is guilty of a controlled substance crime in the first degree if on one or more occasions 3 Fugalli relies on three primary cases identifying these elements : (identity); State v. Robinson , (weight); State v. Olhausen , (identity and weight).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jason James Loveless, Appellant. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
the supreme court concluded that the evidence was insufficient to prove that the defendant possessed a sufficient quantity of a controlled substance.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
2(a)(1) (2014), which requires that “the person unlawfully possesses one or more mixtures of a total weight of three grams or more containing cocaine, heroin, or methamphetamine.” “The weight of the mixture is an essential element of the offense charged; like every other essential element, i t must be proven by the state and proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” d 336, 339 (Minn. 1994).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Moreover, defining “dominion” as “supreme authority” or “absolute ownership ,” as appellant proposed would undermine State v. Robinson , (holding that “dominion may be shared with others”).
State v. Carpenter 893 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Carpenter 893 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Carpenter argued that the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was in possession of ten or more grams of heroin, as the 19 test samples collectively weighed only 9.066 grams.
State of Minnesota v. Ely Ovis Emmanuel Ana El Sabahot Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ely Ovis Emmanuel Ana El Sabahot Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ricky Harry Gruber 864 N.W.2d 628 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ricky Harry Gruber 864 N.W.2d 628 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Dean Kruse Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Dean Kruse Minn. Ct. App. 2015
for his argument that “the fact that the pills are marked as diazepam does not eliminate the rational possibility that they were, in fact, placebos.” Kruse’s reliance on Robinson is misplaced.
State of Minnesota v. David Lee King Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Lee King Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(discussing testimony from an expert that revealed the alleged controlled substances to be baking soda, powdered sugar, or soap).
State of Minnesota v. Tommy Salyers, III 858 N.W.2d 156 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tommy Salyers, III 858 N.W.2d 156 Minn. 2015
See, n.7 (Minn. 2004); State v. 5 Robinson, -29 (Minn. 1982).
State of Minnesota v. Roosevelt Hunter 857 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In State v. Robinson, the supreme court described the Florine rule as defining constructive possession to include situations where the controlled substance was found “in a place where others had access” and “the defendant was at the time consciously or knowingly exercising dominion and control 8 over the substance in question.” (emphasis added).
State v. Arnold 794 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Arnold 794 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Finding no support for Arnold’s view in Florine itself, we ask whether some definition of “dominion” has arisen in the cases that have applied the Florine “dominion and control” standard to indicate that “do *404 minion” means more than “control.” but we are convinced that its reasoning guides the outcome.
State v. Knoch 781 N.W.2d 170 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Knoch 781 N.W.2d 170 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Knoch and Watson also rely, to a lesser extent
State v. Peck 756 N.W.2d 510 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Peck 756 N.W.2d 510 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency 728 N.W.2d 510 Minn. 2007
Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency 728 N.W.2d 510 Minn. 2007
See, (rejecting random sampling method of testing for cocaine where the total weight of the cocaine is an essential element of the offense); Vail, d at 133 (acknowledging that three separate laboratory tests to identify marijuana could be inadequate in light of questionable testing practices).
State v. Olhausen 681 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2004
State v. Olhausen 681 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2004
State v. Olhausen 669 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Olhausen 669 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
the state must establish the requisite statutory weight through scientific testing.
State v. Munson 594 N.W.2d 128 Minn. 1999
State v. Munson 594 N.W.2d 128 Minn. 1999
State v. Traxler 583 N.W.2d 556 Minn. 1998
State v. Traxler 583 N.W.2d 556 Minn. 1998
State v. Galvan 532 N.W.2d 210 Minn. 1995
State v. Galvan 532 N.W.2d 210 Minn. 1995
However, dealing with scientific testing of suspected controlled substances to determine their identity, applies to marijuana eases, not just cocaine cases.