State v. Barela

K.M. scheduled a massage at Massage Envy, where Robert Barela (defendant) worked as a massage therapist. Although K.M. had received a massage from Barela before, she did not request him on this occasion. K.M. undressed for her massage and was covered only by a sheet and blanket. According to K.M., Barela began massaging her inner thigh and, within seconds, pulled her to the end of the table, dropped his pants, and penetrated her vagina. K.M. testified that she “froze,” said nothing, and “checked out” mentally because she was scared and alone in the studio. After finishing, Barela abruptly ended the session. K.M. quickly dressed, accepted water from Barela, paid her bill (including a tip), took a mint, and left. Barela told a very different story. He claimed that K.M. became aroused during the massage, initiated sexual contact by grabbing him, and actively participated in intercourse. At trial, Barela argued that the encounter was consensual and that K.M. lied to protect her relationship with her partner, Trista. Barela suggested that K.M. had recently undergone artificial insemination with a Black donor and feared that if she became pregnant by Barela, a light-skinned Hispanic man, Trista would question the baby’s paternity. A jury convicted Barela of first-degree rape. Barela appealed, arguing that his attorney was ineffective for failing to object to a flawed jury instruction regarding the mens rea for nonconsent and that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove nonconsent under Utah’s rape statute, which he claimed exhaustively listed all the circumstances constituting a lack of consent.