constructively possessed the marijuana beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. LaPlante, 2002 SD 95, ¶ 87, 650 N.W.2d 305, 314 (determining that obvious evidence of drug activity in the basement of mother and father’s home by their sons supported a finding that mother and father had knowledge of drug use, storage and sale occurring in the home). The trier-of-fact is “permitted to consider the circumstances surrounding the discovery of the drugs.” United States v. Flores, 362 F.3d 1030 (8th Cir.2004)(upholding drug convictions based on constructive possession of methamphetamine found in the spare tire of a vehicle in light of evidence of a close relationship and drug conspiracy between driver and passenger of the vehicle). See also United States v. Lee, 356 F.3d 831, 837 (8th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). The evidence presented at trial, including
holding evidence establishing the intent of the defendants to distribute drugs also permits the inference they intended to exercise dominion over them to demonstrate constructive possession holding that constructive possession exists where one knowingly has the power and the intention at a given time to exercise dominion and control over an object either directly or through others 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 an inference of intent to distribute was not warranted from the possession of one ounce of cocaine holding the large quantity of drugs sufficient evidence of intent to distribute