28 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2024 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Minnesota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Florinegreen2 sentences2024The constructive-possession doctrine requires a strong inference “that the defendant at one time physically possessed the [ammunition] and did not abandon his possessory interest in the [ammunition] but rather continued to exercise dominion and control over it up to the time of the arrest.” Id. (quoting Florine, 226 N.W.2d at 610 ). 2024The constructive-possession doctrine requires a strong inference “that the defendant at one time physically possessed the [ammunition] and did not abandon his possessory interest in the [ammunition] but rather continued to exercise dominion and control over it up to the time of the arrest.” Id. (quoting Florine, 226 N.W.2d at 610 ). | 9 | 17 |
State v. Wileygreen2 sentences1976See, State v. Wiley, 295 Minn. 411 , 205 N. W. 2d 667 (1973); State v. LaBarre, 292 Minn. 228 , 195 N. W. 2d 435 (1972); State v. Resnick, 287 Minn. 168 , 177 N. W. 2d 418 (1970).” In this case the police found the heroin in a cabinet in the living room of a house which defendant shared with a woman and two children. 1976See, State v. Wiley, 295 Minn. 411 , 205 N. W. 2d 667 (1973); State v. LaBarre, 292 Minn. 228 , 195 N. W. 2d 435 (1972); State v. Resnick, 287 Minn. 168 , 177 N. W. 2d 418 (1970).” In this case the police found the heroin in a cabinet in the living room of a house which defendant shared with a woman and two children. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Olsongreen2 sentences2015In State v. Olson, our supreme court endorsed a multi-factor constructive possession instruction that was almost identical to the one given here. 482 N.W.2d 212 , 216 n.3 (Minn. 1992). 2015For example, in State v. Olson, we held that the trial court’s constructive-possession instruction was improper when it stated that “[t]he presence of a controlled substance in open view in a room ... permits the factfinder to infer knowing possession of the controlled substance by each person in close proximity to the controlled substance.... ” 482 N.W.2d 212, 215 (Minn.1992). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Arnoldgreen1 sentence2016On review of Arnold’s conviction, we emphasized that “[t]he purpose of the constructive-possession doctrine is to include within the possession statute those cases where the state cannot prove actual or physical possession.” Id. at 401 (quotation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Flowersgreen1 sentence2015We reasoned that such an instruction “was not a balanced instruction on the various relevant factors bearing on the jury’s determination of the disputed possession issue but rather was one which singled out and unfairly emphasized one factor, one piece of the circumstantial evidence, bearing on that determination....” Id. at 216 ; see also State v. Flowers, 734 N.W.2d 239, 261-62 (Minn.2007) (holding that a jury instruction was erroneous because it stated that knowing possession “may be inferred if the firearm was in a place under [the accused’s] exclusive control” but did not “instruct the ju | 1 | 1 |
Leake v. Stategreen1 sentence2014See Leake, 737 N.W.2d at 536 (requiring postconviction petitioner to allege facts that if established would show counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that, “but for the errors, the result would have been different”) (quotations omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Denisongreen1 sentence2001See State v. Denison, 607 N.W.2d 796, 799-800 (Minn.App.2000) (explaining the constructive-possession doctrine), review denied (Minn. June 13, 2000). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lozargreen1 sentence2000State v. Lozar, 458 N.W.2d 434, 441 (Minn.App.1990), review denied (Minn. Sept. 28, 1990). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State of Minnesota v. Tommy Salyers, III
green
2 sentences2015Accordingly, the state relied on the doctrine of constructive possession. [T]he purpose of the constructive-possession doctrine “is to include within the possession statute those cases where the state cannot prove actual or physical possession at the time of arrest but where the inference is strong that the defendant at one time physically possessed the [item] and did not abandon his possessory interest in the [item] but rather continued to exercise dominion and control over it up to the time of the arrest.” 5 Id. (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104-05 , 226 2015Accordingly, the state relied on the doctrine of constructive possession. [T]he purpose of the constructive-possession doctrine “is to include within the possession statute those cases where the state cannot prove actual or physical possession at the time of arrest but where the inference is strong that the defendant at one time physically possessed the [item] and did not abandon his possessory interest in the [item] but rather continued to exercise dominion and control over it up to the time of the arrest.” 5 Id. (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104-05 , 226 | 4 | 2015–2016 |
State v. Resnick
neutral
2 sentences1976See, State v. Wiley, 295 Minn. 411 , 205 N. W. 2d 667 (1973); State v. LaBarre, 292 Minn. 228 , 195 N. W. 2d 435 (1972); State v. Resnick, 287 Minn. 168 , 177 N. W. 2d 418 (1970).” In this case the police found the heroin in a cabinet in the living room of a house which defendant shared with a woman and two children. 1976See, State v. Wiley, 295 Minn. 411 , 205 N. W. 2d 667 (1973); State v. LaBarre, 292 Minn. 228 , 195 N. W. 2d 435 (1972); State v. Resnick, 287 Minn. 168 , 177 N. W. 2d 418 (1970).” In this case the police found the heroin in a cabinet in the living room of a house which defendant shared with a woman and two children. | 2 | 1975–1976 |
State v. LaBarre
green
2 sentences1976See, State v. Wiley, 295 Minn. 411 , 205 N. W. 2d 667 (1973); State v. LaBarre, 292 Minn. 228 , 195 N. W. 2d 435 (1972); State v. Resnick, 287 Minn. 168 , 177 N. W. 2d 418 (1970).” In this case the police found the heroin in a cabinet in the living room of a house which defendant shared with a woman and two children. 1976See, State v. Wiley, 295 Minn. 411 , 205 N. W. 2d 667 (1973); State v. LaBarre, 292 Minn. 228 , 195 N. W. 2d 435 (1972); State v. Resnick, 287 Minn. 168 , 177 N. W. 2d 418 (1970).” In this case the police found the heroin in a cabinet in the living room of a house which defendant shared with a woman and two children. | 2 | 1975–1976 |
State v. Holliday
green
2 sentences2023In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction, appellate courts “review criminal bench trials the same as jury trials.” State v. Holliday, 745 N.W.2d 556, 4 Hinton’s brief to this court argues that “the application of the constructive-possession doctrine [is] problematic.” Hinton relies on the following language from Florine: the constructive-possession doctrine applies where the state cannot prove actual possession but “where the inference is strong that the defendant at one time physically possessed the substance and did not abandon his possessory interest in the subs 2023In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction, appellate courts “review criminal bench trials the same as jury trials.” State v. Holliday, 745 N.W.2d 556 , 4 Hinton’s brief to this court argues that “the application of the constructive-possession doctrine [is] problematic.” Hinton relies on the following language from Florine: the constructive-possession doctrine applies where the state cannot prove actual possession but “where the inference is strong that the defendant at one time physically possessed the substance and did not abandon his possessory interest in the sub | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Smith
green
1 sentence2015In addition, because constructive possession may be shared, Smith, 619 N.W.2d at 770 , the phrase “through another person” did not improperly expand liability under the constructive-possession doctrine. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Lee
green
1 sentence2009State v. Lee, 683 N.W.2d 309 , 316 n. 7 (Minn.2004) (explaining that if the police find the contraband in a place where others have access, the constructive-possession doctrine requires “a strong probability, inferable from the evidence, that the defendant was, at the time, consciously exercising dominion and control over it”). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.