Court Opinion

ID: 9664947
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:35:01.969347+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:11.748843
License: Public Domain

POPOVICH, Chief Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent because I believe the evidence was sufficient to sustain appellant’s conviction. The brown vinyl case was found on the ground directly under the place where the driver’s window had been, a few inches from appellant’s wallet. The clothing and other items scattered from the backseat of the car were not in the immediate area of appellant’s wallet and the vinyl case. A jury could reasonably infer that the case was in the front seat and that appellant constructively possessed the case containing cocaine. See State v. Wiley, 366 N.W.2d 265, 270 (Minn.1985).
Until trial, Crawford never told anyone the cocaine was hers. This exculpating statement could reasonably have been disbelieved by the jury. See State v. Johnson, 359 N.W.2d 698, 701 (Minn.Ct.App.1984). The jury could also have believed appellant constructively possessed the cocaine jointly with Crawford. See State v. Labarre, 292 Minn. 228, 195 N.W.2d 435 (1972).
This court must review the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict. The jury’s finding here was not manifestly contrary to the evidence or established principles of law. Appellant’s conviction should be affirmed.