to Saint Paul. The police subsequently learned that the defendants were involved in an accident while driving back to Saint Paul and Medal-Mendoza was arrested in Wisconsin. Based on this information, the court gave the following flight jury instruction over Medal-Mendoza’s objection: It is for you alone to decide whether or not the defendant fled after the alleged crimes. If you determine that he did flee, then you may take such flight into consideration as an inference of guilty intention at the time of the incident, giving rise to these charges. Flight in itself is not conclusive evidence of a guilty intent; but if you find such flight existed, then you may consider it, along with all of the other pertinent evidence in this case in determining whether or not the S (Minn.1992) (<HOLDING>). We note that the district court gave the same
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 it was reversible error to give the jury a permissive inference instruction on possession of a controlled substance holding that possession of listed chemical with intent to manufacture controlled substance is controlled substance offense holding that mens rea required for possession of a controlled substance is knowledge that defendant possessed a controlled substance holding reversal warranted where a permissive inference instruction on possession of a controlled substance contributed to the cumulative prejudicial effect of the errors in defendants trial