Utah Court of Appeals
When is a victim's emotional reaction admissible evidence in Utah criminal cases? State v. Bran Explained
Summary
Bran, a massage therapist, was convicted of object rape after a patient alleged he inappropriately touched her during a massage session. Bran appealed, claiming plain error and ineffective assistance of counsel on multiple grounds including the admission of testimony about the victim’s emotional state and his apology.
Analysis
Background and Facts
Gabriel Bran, a massage therapist, was convicted of object rape after a patient alleged he inappropriately touched her during a massage session. The victim testified that during treatment for sciatic nerve pain, Bran slid his hand beneath her underwear and between her labia without consent. After the victim stopped him, Bran apologized and left the room. Multiple witnesses testified that the victim was crying and emotionally distressed immediately after the incident.
Key Legal Issues
On appeal, Bran challenged the admission of testimony about the victim’s crying as inadmissible hearsay, argued his apology should have been excluded, and claimed ineffective assistance of counsel on several grounds including failure to request a directed verdict and lesser-included offense instruction.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Regarding the crying evidence, the court held that nonverbal conduct is only subject to the hearsay rule if the person “intended it as an assertion.” Since Bran never argued the victim intended her crying as an assertion, the testimony was properly admitted as circumstantial evidence. The court noted that “ambiguous and doubtful cases will be resolved against” the party claiming assertive intention “and in favor of admissibility.”
Concerning Bran’s apology, the court explained it was not hearsay because Utah Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2) excludes from the hearsay definition any statement made by and offered against an opposing party—making it an admission by a party opponent.
Practice Implications
This decision clarifies that emotional reactions like crying are generally admissible unless the defendant can establish the person intended the conduct as an assertion. Defense counsel should carefully evaluate whether challenging such evidence as hearsay has merit, as unsuccessful objections provide no benefit. The court’s analysis also reinforces that party admissions remain a powerful exception to hearsay rules in criminal cases.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Bran
Citation
2021 UT App 62
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20200318-CA
Date Decided
June 10, 2021
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
Evidence of a victim’s crying after alleged sexual assault is not inadmissible hearsay where the conduct was not intended as an assertion, and defendant’s apology constitutes an admission by a party opponent.
Standard of Review
Correctness for legal determinations leading to admissibility rulings, clear error for factual findings, abuse of discretion for admissibility rulings, correctness for plain error claims and ineffective assistance of counsel claims
Practice Tip
When challenging emotional evidence as hearsay, establish that the person intended their conduct as an assertion—ambiguous cases will be resolved in favor of admissibility.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.