v. Papadakis, 643 N.W.2d 349, 354 (Minn.App.2002) (quotation omitted). Ali argues that the evidence was not sufficient to establish that he knew that his khat contained cathinone. The state responds that Ali’s conduct shows that he knew he possessed an illegal controlled substance. Our supreme court has not had occasion to clarify whether Minnesota’s actual-knowledge requirement may be satisfied by proof that the defendant knew that the substance he possess 11th Cir.1989) (“[T]he government need not prove that [defendant] actually knew that the substance involved was methaqualone as long as he knew he was importing a controlled substance.”). State courts have followed the same approach. See, e.g., People v. Martin, 25 Cal.4th 1180, 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 599, 25 P.3d 1081, 1083-84 (2001) (<HOLDING>); State v. Sartin, 200 Wis.2d 47, 546 N.W.2d
recognizing that a conviction under  841a1 requires knowledge that the substance was a controlled substance but rejecting the argument that knowledge of the exact drug type or quantity is an element of the offense holding that mens rea required for possession of a controlled substance is knowledge that defendant possessed a controlled substance 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 a defendants knowledge of the presence of the controlled substance and its nature as a restricted dangerous drug requires no further showing of a subjective mental state 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