State of Minnesota v. Tommy Salyers, III

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that “we have made it clear, at least with respect to the felon-in-possession statute, that knowledge of the prohibited item is required”
• explaining that a section 609.667(3) charge requires proof that the defendant is knowingly in possession of a firearm that is not identified by a serial number
• noting that the state established exclusive control by direct evidence where a gun was found in a bedroom safe in defendant’s home, and applying circumstantial-evidence standard was unnecessary
• stating that “ease of access is certainly one factor relevant to establishing constructive possession”
• applying traditional standard of review because state introduced sufficient direct evidence of possession of firearm
• applying direct-evidence standard of review in case involving constructive possession of items within the defendant’s exclusive control

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).