State v. Barela
2015 UT 22 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A conviction for rape requires the prosecution to prove that the defendant possessed the requisite mens rea (intent, knowledge, or recklessness) as to the victim's lack of consent, not just as to the act of sexual intercourse. The statutory list of circumstances constituting nonconsent in Utah Code § 76-5-406 is not exhaustive but merely identifies situations where consent is legally impossible as a matter of public policy.
Facts:
- Robert Barela was employed as a massage therapist at a Massage Envy studio, and K.M. was a client.
- K.M. arrived for an appointment and was assigned Barela as her therapist, though she had not specifically requested him.
- During the massage, while K.M. was lying on her back, Barela began massaging her inner thigh, which made her feel uncomfortable.
- According to K.M., within a matter of seconds, Barela pulled her to the end of the massage table, dropped his pants, and penetrated her vagina with his penis.
- K.M. testified that she did not verbally protest or physically resist, but rather 'froze' because the events happened very fast and she was scared.
- Barela's version of the events was that K.M. initiated the sexual encounter by becoming aroused, grabbing his crotch, and actively participating.
- After the encounter concluded, K.M. got dressed, paid her bill including a tip, and left the studio.
- Shortly after driving away, K.M. pulled over and called a friend, who described her as 'frantic' and 'very upset'.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Barela was prosecuted for first-degree rape in the Third District Court for Salt Lake County, Utah (trial court).
- Following a trial, the jury returned a guilty verdict.
- Barela, through new counsel, filed a post-verdict request for a subpoena of the victim's medical records, which the trial court denied.
- Barela then filed a motion for a new trial, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel and insufficiency of the evidence.
- The trial court denied Barela's motion for a new trial.
- Barela (appellant) appealed his conviction and the denial of his post-trial motions to the Utah Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a jury instruction for rape that applies the mens rea requirement of 'intentionally or knowingly' only to the element of sexual intercourse, and not to the element of the victim's nonconsent, constitute reversible error due to ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Lee
Yes. A jury instruction for rape that fails to clearly apply the mens rea requirement to the element of the victim's nonconsent is erroneous, and defense counsel's failure to object constitutes ineffective assistance that is reasonably likely to have affected the verdict. Our criminal code requires proof of a culpable mental state for each element of a non-strict liability crime. Because nonconsent is a critical element of rape, the prosecution must prove the defendant acted intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly as to the victim's lack of consent. The instruction given here misleadingly separated the 'intentionally or knowingly' element from the 'without consent' element, implying the mental state only applied to the act of intercourse. No reasonable trial strategy justifies failing to object to this understatement of the prosecution's burden. This error was prejudicial because the jury heard two conflicting accounts. A properly instructed jury, even if it rejected Barela's story, could have reasonably concluded that he was mistaken about K.M.'s consent and acquitted him on that basis.
Dissenting - Justice Durham
No. While the jury instruction was erroneous and counsel's failure to object was deficient performance, there is no reasonable probability that the error affected the outcome of the trial. The jury's guilty verdict demonstrates it found K.M.'s testimony credible and rejected Barela's account. Based on K.M.'s version of events—a massage therapist penetrating a client within seconds of touching her inner thigh without any invitation or conversation—it is highly probable that a properly instructed jury would have concluded Barela knew she had not consented, or at minimum, acted with criminal recklessness. A defendant acts recklessly when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk, and assuming consent under these circumstances constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care an ordinary person would exercise. Therefore, confidence in the verdict is not undermined, and the conviction should be affirmed.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that mens rea applies to all material elements of an offense, including circumstance elements like nonconsent in rape cases. It serves as a crucial guide for trial courts, emphasizing that jury instructions must be drafted with precision to ensure juries understand they must find the defendant possessed a culpable mental state regarding the victim's lack of consent. Furthermore, the court's interpretation of Utah Code § 76-5-406 as a non-exhaustive list is significant, as it preserves the jury's role in making fact-intensive determinations of nonconsent based on the totality of the circumstances, especially in cases involving trauma responses like 'freezing' that do not fit neatly into enumerated statutory categories.
