State v. Florine

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that defendant must consciously possess substance and have actual knowledge of nature of substance
• holding that constructive possession is shown “if police found [contraband] in a place to which others had access [and] there is a strong probability . . . that defendant was at the time consciously exercising dominion and control over it”
• stating that constructive possession exists when an item is found in a place under a defendant’s control to which no other person normally had access
• stating that an element of first-degree controlled- substance crime is that the defendant “knowingly possessed” the requisite weight of methamphetamine
• holding defendant may constructively possess a controlled substance found in a place to which others also have access if defendant exercises dominion and control over it
• stating that there 5 was no actual possession when there was clearly no evidence that the controlled substances found in an abandoned vehicle were physically possessed by the defendant

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).