Where there is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, our review is limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict they did. The court will not disturb the verdict if the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and for the necessity of overcoming it by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that a defendant was proven guilty of the offense charged. Appellant argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction because the evidence did not establish he knowingly possessed the firearm. The state may obtain a conviction for violation of Minn. Stat. The purpose of the constructive possession doctrine is to permit conviction under the possession statute when 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 interest in it.
Proximity is an important factor in establishing constructive possession.
Here, the police officer testified that he observed appellant sitting directly on the gun as appellant shifted in his seat to reach for his driver's license. The supreme court has affirmed a conviction for constructive possession with similar facts. In Willis , the court concluded that a handgun found directly under the car seat on which a defendant was sitting was sufficient to establish constructive possession beyond a reasonable doubt. Here, appellant was in closer proximity to the gun than the defendant in Willis, and the jury could reasonably infer that he was consciously exercising control over it. Appellant argues in his pro se supplemental brief that he was denied effective assistance of counsel.