With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of Appeals, we conclude that this one critical piece of evidence, the ammunition clip, was enough to create an inference of both knowledge and control, particularly when embellished by all the other pieces of incriminating evidence. Put another way, focusing on the presence of the ammunition clip, we conclude that the evidence, viewed most favorably to the State, necessarily does not support any “reasonable hypothesis of innocence,” even though, as we have said earlier, the State’s burden no longer extends that far after Brown. {25} Other states have determined there was sufficient evidence of constructive possession of a firearm by a felon based on similar facts, specifically with more than one person in the car. See, e.g., United States v. Gorman, 312 F.3d 1159, 1164 (10th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); State v. Armentor, 649 So.2d 1187, 1189-90

A: holding the evidence sufficient to support a finding that the defendant a front seat passenger of a vehicle occupied by three individuals was in constructive possession of marijuana found in white bag directly under the defendants seat
B: holding sufficient connection or nexus existed between the defendant and a gun in a case of nonexclusive possession because the gun was found under the defendants seat was visible and retrievable by defendant and a magazine of ammunition was hidden in the seat cover
C: holding that evidence was sufficient to prove defendant constructively possessed the gun where although defendant denied ownership of the gun it was found near a knife of which defendant claimed ownership and where defendant was aware of the presence of the gun
D: holding conviction for possession was supported by sufficient evidence when a firearm was found under the passenger seat where the defendant had been sitting and the arresting officer observed the defendant trying to place something in the glove compartment which when searched yielded an ammunition clip matching the gun under the seat
B.