State of Maine v. Ahmed M. Asaad, 224 A.3d 596

Asaad met the victim via online dating; on Nov. 29, 2017 they began consensual sexual activity that escalated to unprotected vaginal intercourse.
The victim had repeatedly told Asaad beforehand that sex required using a condom, and on the night asked if he had brought one; Asaad said he had forgotten.
After learning there was no condom, the victim rolled over and looked at her phone; Asaad turned her over, got on top, penetrated her, and continued despite her saying “no” and “stop” several times until he ejaculated.
Asaad was indicted under 17-A M.R.S. § 253(2)(M) (gross sexual assault), waived a jury, and was convicted after a two-day bench trial; he was sentenced to three years with all but nine months suspended.
On appeal Asaad challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence to prove the requisite mens rea that he knew the victim had not acquiesced, and (2) that §253(2)(M) requires proof of a particular mens rea rather than imposing strict liability.

Issue	State's Argument	Asaad's Argument	Held
Sufficiency: did evidence prove Asaad knew the victim had not acquiesced?	Evidence (victim’s prior condition about condoms, her asking that night, his response, her phone/positioning, her saying “stop,” and physical size disparity) supports an inference he was aware she did not consent to unprotected intercourse.	Evidence was insufficient to show he knew she had not acquiesced.	Affirmed: viewing evidence in State’s favor, the court found the evidence more than sufficient to infer knowledge.
Mens rea required by §253(2)(M): strict liability vs. knowledge/recklessness/negligence	The State argued (in part) about statutory interpretation; the court rejected a strict liability reading of the statute.	Asaad urged the statute must require proof he knew the victim had not acquiesced.	Court rejected strict liability but declined to decide whether §253(2)(M) requires knowledge, recklessness, or negligence; remitted that policy choice to the Legislature.

State v. Fournier, 203 A.3d 801 (affirming that trial-court factual findings are upheld if supported by competent evidence)
State v. Dorweiler, 143 A.3d 114 (standard for sufficiency review: view evidence in light most favorable to State)
State v. McBreairty, 137 A.3d 1012 (fact-finder may draw reasonable inferences and assess witness credibility)
State v. Graham, 113 A.3d 1102 (mens rea may be inferred from the act, circumstances, and other evidence)
State v. Hider, 649 A.2d 14 (failure to instruct jury on an essential element is error)
State v. Dodd, 503 A.2d 1302 (when no special findings requested in a bench trial, appellate review focuses on sufficiency of evidence)