State v. Barela, 349 P.3d 676

Background

Defendant Robert Barela, a Massage Envy therapist, was convicted of first-degree rape for having sexual intercourse with client K.M.; semen matched Barela by DNA.
K.M.’s account: during a routine massage Barela unexpectedly massaged her inner thigh, pulled her to the table edge, dropped his pants, and penetrated her; she testified she “froze” and did not resist or say no.
Barela’s account: K.M. initiated sexual contact and actively participated; defense argued consensual sex and suggested motive for K.M. to fabricate.
Jury instructions listed elements of rape but phrased mens rea (“intentionally or knowingly”) so it appeared to apply only to the act of intercourse, not to the victim’s nonconsent.
Post-trial, Barela raised ineffective assistance claims (including failure to object to the instruction and failure to present a mistake-of-fact defense) and sought a subpoena for K.M.’s medical records under Utah R. Crim. P. 14(b); the district court denied relief and subpoena.
Utah Supreme Court reversed the conviction for ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to the defective mens rea instruction, and clarified statutory and procedural law regarding nonconsent (Utah Code § 76-5-406) and Rule 14(b) subpoenas for medical records.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Barela)	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to a jury instruction that tied mens rea only to intercourse (not to nonconsent)	Instruction was legally sufficient; jury need not be told mens rea applies separately to nonconsent	Counsel was ineffective; instruction misstated law by not requiring mens rea as to victim’s nonconsent	Reversed conviction: counsel was ineffective for failing to object; instruction was erroneous and prejudice was reasonably likely to affect verdict
Whether counsel was ineffective for not advancing a mistake-of-fact defense (lack of mens rea as to nonconsent)	N/A (focus on sufficiency and instruction)	Counsel should have presented mistake-of-fact/reasonable-mistake defense instead of relying solely on credibility contest	Not ineffective on this point: trial strategy to avoid undermining primary theory was reasonable (no reversal on this ground)
Whether Utah Code § 76-5-406 provides an exhaustive definition of nonconsent	N/A at trial; on appeal Barela argued § 406 is exclusive list of nonconsent circumstances	§ 406 is exhaustive—if freezing not listed, conviction cannot rest on that theory	Rejected: § 406 is not exhaustive; it prescribes circumstances where consent is conclusively absent as a matter of public policy, but juries retain fact-specific role to find nonconsent in other contexts
Whether post-trial subpoena for victim’s medical records under Utah R. Crim. P. 14(b) was improperly denied	Subpoena reasonably likely to produce exculpatory evidence (e.g., medication effects); request allowed post-trial	Court properly denied subpoena as not reasonably certain to produce exculpatory evidence and/or untimely	Court did not decide on facts but clarified standard: defendant must show to a "reasonable certainty" the records contain exculpatory evidence and requests must identify records with particularity and be reasonably limited; trial court has discretion on timeliness

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard)
State v. Marchet, 219 P.3d 75 (Utah Ct. App. 2009) (mens rea must apply to nonconsent element)
State v. Jeffs, 243 P.3d 1250 (Utah 2010) (requires correct instruction on application of § 76-5-406)
State v. Hutchings, 285 P.3d 1183 (Utah 2012) (harmlessness analysis under Strickland for mens rea instruction)
State v. Powell, 154 P.3d 788 (Utah 2007) (instructional error harmless where evidence of intent overwhelming)