## Facts

- Robert Barela, a massage therapist, provided a massage to K.M., a client who was nude and covered by a sheet and blanket during the session.
- K.M. testified that Barela abruptly initiated vaginal penetration without her consent; she froze, did not verbally resist, and left after paying.
- Barela testified that K.M. initiated sexual contact and actively participated, making the encounter consensual.
- The prosecution charged Barela with first-degree rape under Utah law, and the core dispute at trial was consent and the parties’ credibility.

## Issues

1. Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to a jury instruction that misstated the mens rea requirement for first-degree rape, including as to the nonconsent element.
2. Whether Utah Code § 76-5-406 provides the exclusive definition of “nonconsent” in rape cases or instead identifies circumstances where consent is legally foreclosed as a matter of policy.
3. What standard governs a defendant’s request for a victim’s medical records under Utah Rule of Criminal Procedure 14(b), including when in camera review is warranted.

## Decision

- The Utah Supreme Court reversed the rape conviction and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held counsel was ineffective for failing to object to an instruction that improperly disconnected the required mens rea from the offense elements, including the circumstance element of nonconsent.
- The court found prejudice because consent was the central contested issue and the erroneous instruction affected the jury’s understanding of the State’s burden.
- Although it did not decide the sufficiency of the evidence, the court interpreted § 76-5-406 and clarified the Rule 14(b) framework because those issues were likely to recur on remand.

## Legal Principles

- Under Utah law, the statutorily specified mens rea generally applies to each material element of an offense, including circumstance elements such as a victim’s lack of consent in rape.
- Counsel is deficient under Strickland when failing to object to a jury instruction that misstates the State’s burden on mens rea as applied to the elements of the charged offense.
- Prejudice exists where an instructional error on a central disputed element creates a reasonable likelihood of a different outcome.
- Utah Code § 76-5-406 is not an exhaustive catalog of all ways to prove nonconsent; it identifies specific circumstances in which the law forecloses a finding of consent as a matter of public policy.
- For victim medical records under Utah R. Crim. P. 14(b), a defendant must make a specific, non-speculative showing that the records are likely to contain material, favorable evidence; if met, courts may use in camera review and must weigh defense needs against privacy interests.

## Conclusion

The court vacated Barela’s rape conviction because trial counsel failed to object to a flawed mens rea instruction affecting the nonconsent element, and it provided guidance that § 76-5-406 is a policy-based bar to consent in enumerated situations rather than the sole definition of nonconsent, while also structuring the standard for seeking victim medical records under Rule 14(b).


State v. Barela, 2015 UT 22, 349 P.3d 676 (Utah 2015)