State of Minnesota v. Dominic Jason Allen Sam, 2015 Minn. App. LEXIS 8

Appellant challenged sufficiency of circumstantial evidence for possession of methamphetamine with firearm enhancement and for being a prohibited person possessing a firearm; car stop followed expired plates and owner’s suspended license; appellant drove, RS passenger, RS moved toward center of car; appellant gave false name, then true name after warning.
Trooper observed open beer bottle between passenger and center console; search of car revealed marijuana in a baggie, a loaded 9mm Beretta under a stocking cap, a bullet in the chamber, a backpack with ammunition, methamphetamine in glove compartment, and methamphetamine in RS’s wallet.
Appellant had no license; PM (car owner) had suspended license; state proceeded on constructive possession theory for methamphetamine in glove compartment since no drugs on appellant’s person.
District court denied a motion for judgment of acquittal and did not apply the two-step Al-Naseer/Silvernail analysis; appellant stipulated to firearm ineligibility at trial, but record shows restoration of civil rights before June 28, 2013; trial led to conviction for possession with firearm enhancement and prohibited-person firearm possession, later reversed on appeal.
Opinion clarifies the standard for circumstantial-evidence sufficiency and corrects the trial court’s application of law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Al-Naseer/Silvernail two-step analysis applies to a motion for acquittal based on circumstantial evidence	State argues standard should follow appellate review; district court erred	Sam contends two-step analysis should be applied at trial	Yes; district court erred in not applying the two-step Al-Naseer/Silvernail analysis
Is there sufficient circumstantial evidence to prove constructive possession of methamphetamine in glove compartment	State argues proximity and dominion establish possession	No exclusive control or strong dominion; alternative explanations exist (e.g., RS possession or car owner)	No; constructive possession not proven beyond reasonable doubt
Whether appellant could be convicted of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person	Conceded prohibited-person status was not proven; evidence insufficient	Stipulated ineligibility, record shows restoration of civil rights	Conviction reversed; appellant not a prohibited person at the relevant time
Whether the firearm-enhancement conviction for possession of methamphetamine can stand given sufficiency of the evidence	Evidence supported constructive possession via circumstantial chain	Alternative reasonable inferences negate guilt	Reversed; insufficiency shown under Al-Naseer/Silvernail

State v. McCormick, 835 N.W.2d 498 (Minn. App. 2013) (standard for reviewing circumstantial-evidence sufficiency on appeal)
State v. Webb, 440 N.W.2d 426 (Minn. 1989) (scope of appellate review for sufficiency of evidence)
State v. Slaughter, 691 N.W.2d 70 (Minn. 2005) (motion for acquittal; directed verdict equivalence; standard of review)
State v. Al-Naseer, 788 N.W.2d 469 (Minn. 2010) (two-step analysis for circumstantial evidence)
State v. Silvernail, 831 N.W.2d 594 (Minn. 2013) (two-step analysis; no deference to trial judge on inferences)
State v. Stein, 776 N.W.2d 709 (Minn. 2010) (discussion of circumstantial-evidence standards (concurring))
State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 226 N.W.2d 609 (Minn. 1975) (constructive possession when not in exclusive control)
State v. Gilbert, 262 N.W.2d 334 (Minn. 1977) (constructive possession standard; place vs. possession)
State v. Hunter, (Minn. App. 2014 WL 7236909) (Minn. App. 2014) (discussed in context of dominion and control; not official reporter)
State v. Lorenz, 368 N.W.2d 284 (Minn. 1985) (drug findings near defendant’s personal effects)
State v. Wiley, 366 N.W.2d 265 (Minn. 1985) (drugs found; proximity and ownership considerations)
State v. Colsch, 284 N.W.2d 839 (Minn. 1979) (drugs near defendant’s items)
State v. Carr, 311 Minn. 161, 249 N.W.2d 443 (Minn. 1976) (information near drugs; possession inferences)
Porte v. State, 832 N.W.2d 303 (Minn. App. 2013) (possession in vehicle context; driver inferences)