Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Gonsalves, 297 P.3d 927.

54 citing documents.

State v. Valenzuela Arella Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Valenzuela Arella Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
§ 13-105(34) (defining "possess"); ¶ 9 (App. 2013) (stating that possession for purposes of misconduct involving weapons can be actual or constructive possession).
State v. Juniel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Juniel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
§ 13- 105(35), and it may be actual or constructive, ¶ 9 (App. 2013).
State v. Collins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Gates Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Gates Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Collins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
§ 13-105(35), and it may be actual or constructive, ¶ 9 (App. 2013).
State v. Welvaert Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Welvaert Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Servin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Servin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
4 STATE v. SERVIN Decision of the Court ¶10 “Possession may be actual or constructive.” ¶ 9 (App. 2013).
State v. Harrington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Harrington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Padilla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Padilla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
“Possession may be actual or constructive.” ¶ 9 (App. 2013).
State v. Cawthon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Cawthon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
“Possession may be actual or constructive.” ¶ 9 (App. 2013).
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
“Possession may be actual or constructive.” ¶ 9 (App. 2013).
State v. Munoz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Munoz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
§ 13- 3102(A)(4); ¶ 9 (App. 2013) (“Actual possession means a defendant knowingly exercised direct physical control over an object.”).
State V, Threadgill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State V, Threadgill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Although there is “no way to determine if the cocaine was in the bag when [his] [finger]print was made,” possession may be proven by circumstantial evidence, ¶ 10 (App. 2013), and we resolve all reasonable inferences against Threadgill, Goudeau, 239 Ariz. at 461, ¶ 169.
State v. Williamson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Williamson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
“Possession may be actual or constructive.” ¶ 9 (App. 2013).
State v. Koch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Koch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Although a defendant’s “[e]xclusive control of the place in which the narcotics are found is not necessary” to show possession, (), a defendant’s “mere presence” at that location is not sufficient, ¶ 10 (App. 2013).
State v. Dressig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Dressig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
“Possession may be actual or constructive.” ¶ 9 (App. 2013).
State v. Burgess Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Burgess Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Wesley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Wesley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Berliew Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Berliew Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
A person “who exercises dominion or control over property has constructive possession of it even if it is not in his physical possession.” ¶ 9 (App. 2013).
State v. Cruz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Cruz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
“Possession may be actual or constructive.” ¶ 9 (App. 2013).
State v. West Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. West Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Mullins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Mullins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
And when officers searched Mullins's home, in addition to the bag containing ten grams of methamphetamine, they discovered a drug ledger, Mullins's cell phone containing text requests to purchase drugs from him, and small clear plastic bags containing a powder residue.4 ¶ 9 (App. 2013) ("Possession may be actual or constructive."); ¶ 10 (App. 2007) (constructive possession may be proven by circumstantial evidence alone); ("[I]t is not necessary to show that a defendant exercised exclusive posses
State v. Cross Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Cross Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 9 (App. 2013) (“[U]nder a theory of constructive possession, two or more persons may jointly possess a prohibited object; possession need not be ‘exclusive, immediate and personal.”) ().
State v. Wyninger Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Wyninger Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 10 (App. 2013) (“Constructive possession may be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence.”).
State v. Bogie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Bogie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
at 100, ¶ 7; ¶ 9 (App. 2013) (same).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by