State v. Mohammed, 939 N.W.2d 498

Defendant Ibrahim Ahmed Mohammed was tried in a bench trial and convicted of one count of gross sexual imposition for forcing E.W. to engage in sexual intercourse.
Alleged facts: Mohammed knocked and prevented E.W. from closing her door, forced his way in, kissed her, got on the floor and pried her legs open, removed her shorts/underwear and later her shirt, grabbed her wrist, pulled her to the bedroom, put her on the bed, and penetrated her — the encounter lasted about 14 minutes.
E.W. repeatedly said “no,” testified she was not strong enough to stop Mohammed (cited arthritis/physical limitations), and sustained a wrist injury. The district court found her testimony credible.
Mohammed moved for acquittal under N.D.R.Crim.P. 29, arguing the State failed to prove the element of “force” beyond a reasonable doubt and that the court improperly lowered the force standard by considering E.W.’s mental capacity.
The district court denied the motion; the Supreme Court reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence and the district court’s exercise of discretion and affirmed the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence that defendant "compelled" victim by force under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-03(1)(a)	State: evidence (blocking door, prying legs, removing clothes, grabbing wrist, pulling to bedroom, witness testimony) shows defendant used physical force to compel submission	Mohammed: no proof of force overcoming resistance in the bedroom; State failed to prove force beyond a reasonable doubt	Held: Sufficient competent evidence of force; victim need not resist; prior forceful acts may be considered in showing compulsion
Whether the court improperly reduced the force standard by considering E.W.’s mental capacity (vulnerable adult)	State: court properly considered victim’s mental capacity as relevant to whether defendant’s actions compelled submission	Mohammed: court lowered the statutory force requirement because victim was vulnerable	Held: Court did not abuse discretion; considering mental capacity did not replace statutory force requirement and conviction is supported by evidence

State v. Vantreece, 736 N.W.2d 428 (N.D. 2007) ("force" is the defendant’s physical action that must compel submission; victim need not resist)
State v. Truelove, 904 N.W.2d 342 (N.D. 2017) (use of force may occur prior to or during the sexual act and such acts may be considered in proving compulsion)
State v. Joern, 249 N.W.2d 921 (N.D. 1977) (discussed/resolved to the extent it suggested a resistance-overcoming requirement)
State v. Jacobson, 419 N.W.2d 899 (N.D. 1988) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence: view evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
State v. Matuska, 379 N.W.2d 273 (N.D. 1985) (jury inference standard cited for evidentiary sufficiency)
State v. Skarsgard, 739 N.W.2d 786 (N.D. 2007) (abuse of discretion review for denial of a Rule 29 motion)