Can deceptive practices negate consent in Utah sexual assault cases? State v. Mottaghian Explained

In State v. Mottaghian, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether deceptive practices can negate consent in sexual assault prosecutions. The case involved a defendant who created internet advertisements seeking women for purported “medical research” involving intimate measurements, when he was actually developing sex toys and was not a medical professional.

Background and Facts

Mottaghian placed Craigslist advertisements seeking women for “anatomy research” to develop “medical devices,” offering $200 for vaginal and anal measurements. Two women, Kelsey and Caroline, responded believing they would participate in legitimate medical research conducted by a doctor. Mottaghian falsely represented himself as a medical professional and claimed the research was for developing catheters and tampons. In reality, he owned restaurants, had no medical training, and was attempting to develop sex toys. During the appointments, he subjected both women to vaginal and anal penetrations and inappropriate touching.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether the State presented sufficient evidence to prove lack of consent. Mottaghian argued that because both women voluntarily agreed to participate in procedures they knew would involve vaginal and anal contact, they consented to his actions. The State contended that Mottaghian’s deceptive practices vitiated any consent.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, emphasizing that consent is “fact-intensive” and “context-dependent.” While Utah Code section 76-5-406 lists specific circumstances constituting lack of consent, it does not comprehensively define nonconsent. Instead, juries may find lack of consent under the “common, ordinary meaning” when considering the totality of circumstances. The court noted that Utah’s consent statute includes scenarios involving deceptive health professionals, and even where statutory scenarios don’t perfectly fit, juries can still find nonconsent based on all evidence presented.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that consent determinations are highly fact-specific and generally left to juries. Practitioners should focus on developing factual records rather than narrow legal theories when addressing consent issues. The case also demonstrates that deceptive practices can be relevant to consent analysis, particularly when defendants misrepresent their qualifications or the nature of the activity. Defense counsel should carefully consider whether consent-based defenses are viable when significant deception is involved, as juries may find such conduct incompatible with meaningful consent.