This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn.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 Unpublished Opinion HUSPENI, Judge (Hon.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.