IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

‐‐‐‐ooOoo‐‐‐‐

State of Utah,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Ismail Abdullahi Mohamed,

Defendant and Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

PER CURIAM DECISION

Case No. 20110066‐CA

F I L E D

(July 6, 2012)

2012 UT App 183

‐‐‐‐‐

Third District, Salt Lake Department, 101902145

The Honorable Deno G. Himonas

Attorneys: Debra M. Nelson, Salt Lake City, for Appellant

Mark L. Shurtleff and Kenneth A. Bronston,  Salt Lake City, for

Appellee

‐‐‐‐‐

Before Judges Voros, Orme, and Roth.

¶1 Ismail Abdullahi Mohamed appeals his conviction on drug charges after a jury

trial, asserting that the evidence was insufficient to convict him.  We affirm.

¶2 Mohamed argues that the evidence was insufficient to convict him because there

was an obvious language barrier and no reasonable person could find that he knew that

he was facilitating a drug deal.  A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence must be

preserved by raising the issue first in the trial court.  See State v. Holgate, 2000 UT 74,

¶ 16, 10 P.3d 346.  Mohamed asserts that the issue raised here was preserved in his

motion for a directed verdict after the close of the State’s case.  To preserve an issue for

appeal, the issue must be “specifically raised such that the issue was sufficiently raised

to a level of consciousness before the trial court.”  State v. Pedersen, 2010 UT App 38,
¶ 42, 227 P.3d 1264 (internal quotation marks omitted).  In his motion for directed

verdict Mohamed asserted that the evidence was insufficient because of confusion

between several people who all went by the same name, asserting that this was a case of

mistaken identity.  In contrast, on appeal, Mohamed argues confusion regarding the

terms used because English is his second language and there was no evidence that he

understood the slang word for cocaine.  This issue was not specifically raised in the trial

court, however, and accordingly is not preserved for appeal.  See id.

¶3 Alternatively, Mohamed argues that the trial court committed plain error in

sending the case to the jury because the evidence was insufficient and that such

insufficiency should have been obvious to the trial court.  When challenging the

sufficiency of the evidence under the plain error doctrine, “a defendant must

demonstrate first that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction of the crime

charged and second that the insufficiency was so obvious and fundamental that the trial

court erred in submitting the case to the jury.”  Holgate, 2000 UT 74, ¶ 17.  When

reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court views the evidence and all

inferences drawn in a light most favorable to the jury verdict.  See id. ¶ 18.  The evidence

will be considered insufficient only if it is “sufficiently inconclusive or inherently

improbable such that reasonable minds must have entertained a reasonable doubt that

the defendant committed the crime for which he or she was convicted.”  Id.

¶4 In this case, the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.  Although a

code word for cocaine was used, Mohamed’s conduct and interactions over the course

of events indicate that he knew what was being asked and that he assisted the officers in

finding drugs to purchase.  He escorted them to a place where drug dealers are

typically present.  When Mohamed and the officers encountered some dealers on an

apartment building’s steps, he warned the officers against going into the building to

complete a drug deal, telling the officers the men would likely rob them.  He ultimately

found someone with whom he was familiar to sell the officers drugs.  Although the

brief conversation Mohamed had with the dealer was in a language other than English,

immediately after that conversation, the dealer asked the officer “how much” and

completed the deal.  Such an interaction permits the inference that Mohamed alerted

the dealer that the officers were looking for drugs.  Overall, the evidence and the

reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom support the conclusion that Mohamed

20110066‐CA 2
understood that the officers were seeking drugs and that Mohamed knowingly and

willingly assisted the officers in finding drugs to buy.

¶5 Affirmed.

____________________________________

J. Frederic Voros Jr.,

Associate Presiding Judge

____________________________________

Gregory K. Orme, Judge

____________________________________

Stephen L. Roth, Judge

20110066‐CA 3