State v. Barela

Summary

The Utah Supreme Court reversed Robert Barela’s first-degree rape conviction, holding that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to a jury instruction that inadequately stated the mens rea requirement as to the victim’s nonconsent. The court also interpreted Utah Code section 76-5-406 as identifying circumstances that foreclose a finding of consent as a matter of public policy, rather than as an exhaustive definition of nonconsent. It further clarified the standard governing subpoenas for a victim’s medical records under Utah Rule of Criminal Procedure 14(b), without reaching the merits of Barela’s particular request.

Holdings

1. The jury instruction was erroneous because it implied that the mens rea requirement applied only to the act of sexual intercourse and not to the victim's nonconsent. Reasonable counsel should have objected, and the error was reasonably likely to have affected the verdict; counsel therefore provided ineffective assistance.
2. Section 76-5-406 does not establish the sum and substance of all circumstances amounting to nonconsent. It prescribes circumstances in which the legislature forecloses a jury finding of consent as a matter of public policy, while nonconsent otherwise remains a fact-intensive, context-dependent question for the jury.
3. A defendant seeking presumptively privileged medical records must show to a reasonable certainty that the records actually contain exculpatory evidence favorable to the defense, and the request must identify the records with particularity and be reasonably limited as to subject matter. The court retains substantial discretion concerning the timing of a request, including a post-trial request.

Questions Presented

1. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to a jury instruction that did not clearly require proof of mens rea as to the victim's nonconsent.
2. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for declining to present a mistake-of-fact defense concerning nonconsent.
3. Whether Utah Code section 76-5-406 provides an exhaustive definition of the circumstances establishing nonconsent.
4. What standard governs a post-trial request for a subpoena of a victim's medical records under Utah Rule of Criminal Procedure 14(b).

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded