Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 0-796 / 10-0302 Filed December 22, 2010

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ATIF EL SIR MOHAMED, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Stephen C. Gerard II, District Associate Judge.

Defendant Atif Mohamed appeals from the judgment and sentence entered on his convictions for indecent exposure. AFFIRMED.

Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Theresa R. Wilson, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Thomas S. Tauber, Assistant Attorney General, Janet M. Lyness, County Attorney, and Anne Lahey, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.

Heard by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel and Vaitheswaran, JJ. Tabor, J., takes no part.

2 VOGEL, J. Defendant Atif Mohamed appeals from the judgment and sentence entered on his convictions following a jury trial for indecent exposure in violation of Iowa Code section 709.9 (2007). The district court imposed a 365 day

sentence with all but thirty days suspended, two years probation, and ordered he register as a sex offender. Mohamed asserts counsel was ineffective for failing to (1) object to questions submitted by jurors to be asked of witnesses; (2) seek admission of the victim's alcohol-related convictions, after the victim opened the door to such evidence; and (3) object to Sergeant Brotherton's testimony that she believed Mohamed committed the offense. We affirm. I. Background Facts and Prior Proceedings The jury could have found the following facts: On August 2, 2008, the victim and a female friend took a cab to a bar in Iowa City driven by Atif Mohamed of Number One Cab Company. They arrived downtown around 11:00 p.m. The victim testified she drank two long island iced teas, and her friend drank three seven-and-seven's. At approximately 1:00 a.m., they again called the cab company, and Mohamed responded to the call. The victim and her friend entered the cab along with three men. The victim's friend and the three men went to another party, and the victim continued home. After the four others left, Mohamed asked the victim to sit in the front seat and she agreed. He

complimented the victim, telling her she was beautiful, and then as they were driving, he began touching her--first her arm, then upper chest, and she was upset by this. When he touched her breast, she testified she told him to stop, and he did. She stated, take me home and turned away. The victim then

3 testified, I was looking out the window, avoiding him; and I heard his zipper unzip. I looked over; and umm, his penis was out of his pants. She saw him holding his penis, told him that was extremely inappropriate and to take her home. He apologized, and she raised her voice saying, Just stop! Take me home. Take me home. He then took her home; she did not pay the cab fare. She called her friend immediately, and called her parents the following day. A day after that, she called the police and gave a statement to Sergeant Denise Brotherton. Sergeant Brotherton interviewed Mohamed on August 6. Mohamed confirmed during his testimony that he asked the victim to sit in the front seat, complimented her, but denied exposing himself or touching her. He asserted she was very intoxicated and he had to help her into the front seat, and fasten her seatbelt. Sergeant Brotherton, on the other hand, testified that while questioning Mohamed, he did not indicate the victim was intoxicated nor needed any help into the cab. A jury trial was held on August 10, 2009. Jurors were allowed to submit questions directed to the victim as well as to another witness for the State. The questions were shown to both the prosecutor and Mohamed's defense counsel, and then asked by the court to the witnesses. Counsel was then allowed to conduct additional re-direct and re-cross examination. A slight modification

occurred when Mohamed was testifying, as his defense counsel was allowed to choose which jury submitted questions would be asked of him. The questions were then asked by defense counsel and the State was allowed to follow with recross examination. There was never direct interaction between the jurors and the witnesses. The jury subsequently returned a guilty verdict, finding Mohamed

4 guilty of indecent exposure in violation of Iowa Code section 709.9. Following imposition of judgment and sentence, Mohamed appeals. II. Standard of Review

Download STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ATIF EL SIR MOHAMED, Defendant-Appellant.

Iowa Law