This opinion will be unpublished and
                  may not be cited except as provided by
               Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1994)

                          State of Minnesota
                            in Court of Appeals
                              CX-95-2407



State of Minnesota,
     Respondent,


vs.

Carol Simberg,
     Appellant.


Filed June 25, 1996
Affirmed
Huspeni, Judge

Ramsey County District Court

File No. K7942981

Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Attorney General, Suite 1400, NCL Tower, 445
Minnesota St., St. Paul, MN 55101 (for Respondent)

Susan Gaertner, Ramsey County Attorney, Darrell C. Hill, Asst. County
Attorney, 50 W. Kellogg Blvd., Suite 315, St. Paul, MN 55102 (for
Respondent)

John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Marie L. Wolf, Asst. Public
Defender, 2829 University Ave. S.E., Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55414 (for
Appellant)

Considered and decided by Klaphake, Presiding Judge, Huspeni, Judge, and
Crippen, Judge.
                                     
                        Unpublished Opinion

HUSPENI, Judge (Hon. Salvador Rosas, District Court Trial Judge)

Appellant claims the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction
for controlled substance crime in the fifth degree. We find the evidence
sufficient for conviction and affirm.
                                     
                               Facts


On September 9, 1994, appellant Carol Simberg approached the entrance to
Ramsey County Family Court. Pursuant to family court policy, appellant
passed through a metal detector and gave her purse to the deputy on duty
for it to be searched. The deputy discovered a plastic film canister
containing two tablets and a white powder in appellant's purse. An analysis
by the St. Paul police crime laboratory revealed that the white powder
weighed 1.8 grams and contained a mix of methamphetamine and ephedrine.

Appellant was charged with controlled substance crime in the fifth degree
in violation of Minn. Stat. 𨳰.025, subd. 2(1) (1994). At trial, a
narcotics unit investigator testified that it is common to carry
methamphetamine in a film container, that the quantity contained in the
film container found in appellant's purse was not a residue amount, and
that methamphetamine sells for approximately $100 a gram. A criminalist in
the crime laboratory testified that the canister did not contain merely a
trace amount of methamphetamine.

Appellant admitted that the purse and film container belonged to her. She
also acknowledged that she was convicted in 1987 for conspiracy to
distribute methamphetamine. Appellant, however, denied knowing that there
was any methamphetamine in the plastic film canister. Appellant stated that
she used the canister to store diet pills and that the canister was with a
bunch of similar containers that were lying around her house after she got
out of prison for her prior methamphetamine offense.

The jury convicted appellant of controlled substance crime in the fifth
degree.
                                     
                              Decision

In order to convict a person of unlawful possession of a controlled
substance, the state must prove the defendant consciously possessed the
substance and had actual knowledge of the nature of the substance. State
v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104, 226 N.W.2d 609, 610 (1975) (citing
LaFave & Scott Criminal Law § 25, at 182). Appellant argues that
her conviction should be overturned because the evidence was insufficient
to prove knowledge. We disagree.

When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged, this court's review is
limited to a careful analysis of the record to determine whether the
evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, was
sufficient to allow the jurors to reach the verdict they reached. State
v. Webb, 440 N.W.2d 426, 430 (Minn. 1989). We must assume the jurors
believed the state's witnesses and disbelieved any contrary evidence.
State v. Moore, 438 N.W.2d 101, 108 (Minn. 1989).

Because knowledge is a subjective state of mind, it usually must be
inferred from the evidence. State v. Mattson, 359 N.W.2d 616, 617
(Minn. 1984).
        
        Circumstantial evidence is entitled to the same
        weight as any evidence so long as the circumstances
        proved are consistent with the hypothesis that the
        accused is guilty and inconsistent with any rational
        hypothesis except that of guilt. The conviction may
        stand only where the circumstances form ``a complete
        chain which, in light of the evidence as a whole,
        leads so directly to the guilt of the accused as to
        exclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, any reasonable
        inference other than that of guilt.''

State v. Bias, 419 N.W.2d 480, 484 (Minn. 1988) (quoting State v.
Wahlberg, 296 N.W.2d 408, 411 (Minn. 1980) ).



Appellant admitted that she owned both the purse and the container in which
the methamphetamine was found. Moreover, the 1.8 grams that appellant was
carrying was not a trivial amount. Thus, the record contains sufficient
evidence for the jury to conclude that appellant was in physical possession
of the methamphetamine and had knowledge of the nature of the substance.
See State v. Siirila, 292 Minn. 1, 10, 193 N.W.2d 467, 473 (1971)
(holding that marijuana that was found in jacket shown to have belonged to
defendant and to have been worn by defendant could be inferred to have been
in jacket with defendant's knowledge), cert. denied 408 U.S. 925;
State v. Williams, 510 N.W.2d 252, 255 (Minn. App. 1994) (defendant's
conviction of possession of controlled substance was supported by evidence
that cocaine was found in duffle bag defendant owned and was carrying and
that no one else was exercising dominion or control over the duffle bag at
time defendant was stopped), rev'd on other grounds, 525 N.W.2d 538
(Minn. 1994).

This court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the state
and assume the jury believed the state's witnesses and disbelieved evidence
to the contrary. Wahlberg, 296 N.W.2d at 411. A jury is in the best
position to evaluate the circumstantial evidence, and its verdict is
entitled to due deference. State v. Race, 383 N.W.2d 656, 662 (Minn.
1986). Given these standards, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient
to disprove the hypothesis of unknowing possession.
Affirmed.