itself.” United States v. Maxwell, 363 F.3d 815, 818 (8th Cir.2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1154, 125 S.Ct. 1293, 161 L.Ed.2d 119 (2005). Wells contends that the evidence does not show that he actually or constructively possessed the Mauser or the Marlin. With respect to the Mauser, Wells argues that his father owned the house and Wells was not aware of any firearms in the house on the day of the decoy deer incident. He also never touched the Mauser that Elsen brought from the house because she placed it in the truck and Reents shot the firearm at the decoy. However, a reasonable jury could find that Wells had dominion and control over the house because Elsen testified that Wells was in charge of it when his father was away. See United States v. Urick, 481 F.3d 300, 303 (8th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Wells also testified that the firearm Elsen
recognizing theory of constructive possession holding that evidence that the defendant lived in a home where marijuana was being cultivated was insufficient to support a finding of constructive possession holding that a defendant had constructive possession over firearms located in a residence where he lived and kept his personal effects holding that proof that the person has dominion over the premises where the firearm is located is sufficient to establish constructive possession citation omitted holding that evidence was insufficient to prove constructive possession where the defendant was in jail at the time the drugs were seized from his residence