 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Ahmed12/17/2002
Affirmed
Considered and decided by Lansing, Presiding Judge, Shumaker, Judge, and Minge, Judge.
Appellant Idirss Osman Ahmed challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions of attempted first-degree criminal sexual conduct and of first-degree burglary, arguing that the victim failed to convincingly identify him as her attacker and that her testimony was inconsistent and contradictory. Because the evidence at trial was sufficient to sustain the verdicts beyond a reasonable doubt, Ahmed's convictions are affirmed.
FACTS
The state charged Ahmed with various counts of burglary, attempted criminal sexual conduct, assault, and terroristic threats, alleging that he committed these crimes against S.E. Ahmed pleaded not guilty, and both he and S.E. testified at the ensuing jury trial.
S.E. testified that she is an immigrant from Kenya and that she met Ahmed in Minneapolis while waiting for her husband to complete his immigration process in Kenya. She stated that she had known Ahmed only for a short time and that he had visited her apartment three times. She indicated that she let him into the apartment the first time, but after that she refused to allow him in because he wanted to date her and she was not interested.
S.E. testified that she was in her apartment and was expecting a visit from her nephew, M.F., on the evening of May 12, 2001. When she heard the security buzzer, she picked up the intercom telephone and asked, "Are you Mohamud?" The person replied, "Yes," and S.E. pressed the button to unlock the entry door.
When S.E. opened her apartment door for her nephew, she realized that she had allowed Ahmed into the building. He grabbed her hand, and she told him to leave. Instead, he entered her apartment, grabbed her shirt, punched her, tore her shirt and pulled it off. Then he pulled his pants down and said that he was going to make love to her. After a struggle, S.E. was able to run out of the apartment and call 911.
Ahmed did not dispute S.E.'s description of the occurrence on May 12, but he testified that he was not the person who committed the crimes. He testified that he was at a Minneapolis nightclub at the time. He said that he had known S.E. for several months and had been seeing her regularly, until she saw him with another woman and became furiously jealous.
The jury found Ahmed guilty of burglary, attempted criminal sexual conduct, and terroristic threats. On appeal, Ahmed challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the convictions. In his brief, Ahmed refers initially and generally to all convictions. However in his argument, Ahmed argues only insufficiency of the evidence for the attempted first-degree criminal sexual conduct and first-degree burglary convictions. We decline to reach issues in absence of adequate briefing. State, Dep't. of Labor & Indus. v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc. 558 N.W.2d 480, 480 (Minn. 1997). The only issues reviewed are Ahmed's challenges to his attempted first-degree criminal sexual conduct and first-degree burglary convictions.
DECISION
"* * * he standard for overturning a conviction for insufficiency of the evidence is a high one * * *." State v. Huss, 506 N.W.2d 290, 292 (Minn. 1993). In considering an insufficiency-of-evidence claim, our review is * * * limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did. State v. Webb, 440 N.W.2d 426, 430 (Minn. 1989).
We must assume that "the jury believed the state's witn
Page 1 2 3 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|