398, 399 (1902) (noting that “[t]he gist of [the] offense [of burglary] is the breaking and entering any building with intent to commit a crime therein”). The State contrasts the phrase “without con holding that the crime of possession of a knife on school grounds requires that the defendant know that he possesses the knife). But the State contends these cases are not relevant to our analysis here because, unlike the criminal offenses at issue in Ndilcum and C.R.M., burglary of any degree requires proof of mens rea and is therefore not a strict liability crime. For their part, respondents argue that our precedent establishes that the statute is ambiguous. See Ndikum, 815 N.W.2d at 818-19; In re C.R.M., 611 N.W.2d at 805; State v. Florine, 808 Minn. 103, 104, 226 N.W.2d 609, 610 (1975) (<HOLDING>). Respondents also contend that construing the
holding to prove possession the state must show that a defendant possessed a certain substance the substance was illegal and he had knowledge of the presence of the substance holding that knowledge that a substance is a controlled substance is an element of  952 holding that possession of a controlled substance is a crime only if the defendant knowingly possesses the substance and has knowledge of the nature of that substance holding that mens rea required for possession of a controlled substance is knowledge that defendant possessed a controlled substance holding that quantity of the controlled substance does not have to be measurable to support a conviction for possession of such controlled substance particularly when the immeasurable amount of the substance is found on an implement used to consume the substance