State v. Mohamed, 282 P.3d 1066

Mohamed appeals his conviction on drug charges after a jury trial, challenging sufficiency of the evidence.
Argument centers on language barriers, claims of mistaken identity, and preservation of sufficiency issues for appeal.
Trial court rejected language-barrier arguments as not preserved; defendant also argued plain error.
Appellate standard: view evidence in light most favorable to the verdict; insufficiency shown only if unbelievable; court affirms.
Key facts show Mohamed escorted officers to drug dealers, warned against entering building, and had a brief non-English exchange with a dealer before the sale—evidence supports that he knew officers sought drugs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the evidence sufficient to convict on the drug charges?	State contends evidence supports knowledge and facilitation.	Mohamed argues insufficient proof due to language barrier and mistaken identity.	Evidence sufficient; conviction affirmed.
Was the sufficiency challenge preserved for appeal?	State maintains proper preservation via directed verdict; issue preserved.	Mohamed asserts preservation failed because language issues were not raised that way.	Not preserved for appeal; issue considered only for plain error.
Does the plain error doctrine apply to sufficiency challenges here?		Mohamed argues obvious error; language issues show insufficiency.	Plain error not established; evidence sufficient under proper standard.
Was Mohamed's language-barrier argument adequately raised in trial court?	State not addressing language barrier; issue preserved via arguments about confusion of identity.	Special language-interpretation issues not specifically raised.	Language-barrier issue not preserved for appeal.

State v. Holgate, 2000 UT 74 (Utah (2000)) (preservation and plain-error considerations in sufficiency challenges)
State v. Pedersen, 2010 UT App 38 (Utah App. 2010) (issue preservation requires specific raising to trial court)