IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

‐‐‐‐ooOoo‐‐‐‐

State of Utah,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Osman Mohammad Noor,

Defendant and Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case No. 20110198‐CA

F I L E D

(July 12, 2012)

   2012 UT App 187

‐‐‐‐‐

Third District, Salt Lake Department, 091905211

The Honorable Judith S. Atherton

Attorneys: Brittany D. Enniss and Michael R. Sikora, Salt Lake City, for Appellant

Mark L. Shurtleff and Michelle I. Young, Salt Lake City, for Appellee

‐‐‐‐‐

Before Judges McHugh, Orme, and Thorne.

THORNE, Judge:

¶1 Osman Mohammed Noor appeals his convictions for burglary, see Utah Code

Ann. § 76‐6‐202 (Supp. 2011), forcible sexual abuse, see id. § 76‐5‐404, and lewdness, see

id. § 76‐9‐702.  Noor argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence that he

had the requisite intent to commit lewdness or forcible sexual abuse, or burglary

premised on either of those offenses.  We affirm.

¶2 Noor and the victim in this case, J.E., lived across the hall from each other in an

apartment building in Salt Lake City.  J.E. was the apartment manager for the building.

On May 28, 2009, shortly after the building’s “quiet hours” began at 10:00 p.m., she
20110198‐CA 2

confronted Noor in the hallway about his loud music and other noisy behavior.  As J.E.

was about to reenter her own apartment, Noor walked past her and entered her

apartment through its open door, without her invitation.  Noor refused to leave and

began disrobing, at which point J.E. called the police.  Noor continued to remove his

clothing and make sexually explicit advances toward J.E., claiming that “he was a man

and that he loved [her].”  Noor ignored J.E.’s physical and verbal objections, pulled J.E.

on top of him, attempted to kiss her, simulated oral sex over her clothing, and reached

his hand down the front of her pants and underwear.  J.E. managed to push Noor away

and run from her apartment as a police officer arrived in response to her call.

¶3 Noor was arrested and charged with one count each of burglary, forcible sexual

abuse, and lewdness.  At Noor’s jury trial, the State called two witnesses, J.E. and the

responding officer.  On cross‐examination, Noor’s counsel elicited testimony from both

witnesses about Noor’s intoxication at the time of the incident and his limited English.

No witnesses testified for the defense, and the defense strategy appeared to focus on

discrediting J.E.  At the close of trial, Noor’s counsel made a motion for a directed

verdict based on insufficiency of the evidence.  The district court denied the motion,

and the jury found Noor guilty of all charges.

¶4 On appeal, Noor argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to

prove that he had the requisite intent to commit lewdness or forcible sexual abuse.  He

also argues that there was insufficient evidence that he entered or unlawfully remained

in J.E.’s apartment with the intent to commit lewdness or forcible sexual abuse.  When a

defendant challenges a jury verdict for insufficiency of the evidence, “we review the

evidence and all inferences which may be reasonably drawn from it in the light most

favorable to the verdict.”  See State v. Hirschi, 2007 UT App 255, ¶ 15, 167 P.3d 503

(internal quotation marks omitted).  We will reverse the jury’s verdict “only when the

evidence, so viewed, is sufficiently inconclusive or inherently improbable that

reasonable minds must have entertained a reasonable doubt that the defendant

committed the crime of which he was convicted.”  See id. (internal quotation marks

omitted).

¶5 However, we will not consider issues on appeal that were not preserved below.

See generally 438 Main St. v. Easy Heat, Inc., 2004 UT 72, ¶ 51, 99 P.3d 801 (discussing

preservation requirements).  “In order to preserve an issue for appeal, it must be . . .

specifically raised such that the issue is sufficiently raised to a level of consciousness
20110198‐CA 3

before the trial court . . . [so as to give] the trial court an opportunity to address the

claimed error, and if appropriate, correct it.”  State v. Santonio, 2011 UT App 385, ¶ 29,

265 P.3d 822 (omissions and alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted),

cert. denied, 275 P.3d 1019 (Utah 2012).  “The mere mention of an issue without

introducing supporting evidence or relevant legal authority does not preserve that issue

for appeal.”  State v. Brown, 856 P.2d 358, 361 (Utah Ct. App. 1993) (internal quotation

marks omitted).

¶6 Noor’s insufficiency of the evidence argument on appeal rests largely on factual

allegations—some of which he apparently raises for the first time on appeal—regarding

his cultural background.  Noor was born in Somalia and fled to refugee camps in Kenya

at the age of twelve.  He lived there for the next seventeen years before coming to the

United States.  Noor argues on appeal that, as abhorrent as it seems within our own

culture, subjugation and domination of women is acceptable and even encouraged in

the highly patriarchal Somali culture.  Additionally, Noor presents authority stating

that rape and violence against women are prevalent in Kenyan refugee camps.  Noor

argues that, in light of the violence he had witnessed for nearly his entire life, his actions

should be viewed only as a misguided attempt to express love and affection and that he

had no intent to commit forcible sexual abuse or lewdness.  Noor also argues that his

lack of fluency in the English language and his intoxication impaired his ability to

understand J.E.’s demands that he stop his advances and leave her apartment.

¶7 Noor’s motion for a directed verdict did not bring these specific issues to the

district court’s attention.  His directed verdict motion stated, in its entirety, “I would

just move to—move for a directed verdict of acquittal based on insufficiency of the

evidence.”  The State offered no comment on the motion, and the district court

immediately denied it.  This exchange did not apprise the district court that Noor was

asserting that his cultural background, intoxication, and difficulties understanding

English rendered him unable to form the requisite intent as to the crimes charged

against him.  Thus, his argument on appeal “was not presented to the trial court in such

a way that it could have understood and ruled on it.”  See Santonio, 2011 UT App 385,

¶ 29.

¶8 Noor’s insufficiency of the evidence argument on appeal was not specifically

presented to the district court and is thus not preserved for appeal.  Accordingly, we

decline to address the merits of Noor’s argument, and we affirm his convictions.
20110198‐CA 4

____________________________________

William A. Thorne Jr., Judge

‐‐‐‐‐

¶9 WE CONCUR:

____________________________________

Carolyn B. McHugh,

Presiding Judge

____________________________________

Gregory K. Orme, Judge