Freeman v. State

2 Citing cases

  1. State v. Vang

    No. A19-1945 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 14, 2020)   Cited 1 times

    We have also refused to recognize the defense in drug-possession cases, in unpublished opinions. See Littlewolf v. State, No. A17-0867, 2018 WL 1247460, at *2 (Minn. App. Mar. 12, 2018); Freeman v. State, No. A15-2035, 2016 WL 4421203, at *3 (Minn. App. Aug. 22, 2016), review denied (Minn. Nov. 15, 2016). We decline to adopt the fleeting-control doctrine here.

  2. Littlewolf v. State

    A17-0867 (Minn. Ct. App. Mar. 12, 2018)   Cited 1 times

    A fleeting-control exception has not been recognized in any context in Minnesota, and has been expressly rejected in the contexts of gun and drug possession. See In re Welfare of S.J.J., 755 N.W.2d 316, 318-19 (Minn. App. 2008) (holding that the statutory language of Minn. Stat. § 624.713 (2006) does not allow for a fleeting-control exception to illegal possession of a firearm); see also Freeman v. State, No. A15-2035, 2016 WL 4421203, at *3 (Minn. App. Aug. 22, 2016) (holding that, under the same reasoning used in S.J.J., Minnesota law does not allow for a fleeting-control exception to drug possession), review denied (Minn. Nov. 15, 2016). Although Freeman is unpublished and therefore is not precedential or binding on this court, we believe that it is highly persuasive to this appeal.