Massage therapist not guilty of sexual assault

A jury found an Edmonton registered massage therapist not guilty Thursday of sexually assaulting a client.

Raul Sarduy-Fleites, 55, faced one count of sexual assault based on allegations by a complainant who said he assaulted her during a massage appointment on May 26, 2014.

The woman, whose identity is protected under a court-ordered publication ban, alleged that during her massage, Sarduy-Fleites removed the sheet and towel covering her, touched her breasts and genitals several times, forcing a finger inside her repeatedly. She told the jury she told him “no” and to stop, but that he held her in place.

The woman was interviewed by detectives and examined by a sexual assault response team nurse. Sarduy-Fleites was interviewed by police and charged months later. During the trial, Sarduy-Fleites’ defence counsel Deborah Hatch argued that the complainant’s testimony was less reliable than testimony by Sarduy-Fleites, and said the complainant’s lack of resistance during and following the alleged assault didn’t make sense for a woman in her 30s.

Crown prosecutor Neil Wiberg had argued that not all victims of trauma react the same way.

In his instructions to jurors, Court of Queen’s Bench Justice John Gill spoke about “witness reliability” and told jurors that if they determined the alleged actions took place, they would have to make a chain of decisions, beginning with determining whether Sarduy-Fleites “intentionally” applied the force, whether the woman had consented to the force, whether Sarduy-Fleites knew she did not consent to his actions, and that the force was sexual in nature.

Gill told the jury that the onus is on the Crown to prove that all of those elements were true, and also said just because the complainant did not “resist or put up a fight,” it doesn’t mean she consented.

Sarduy-Fleites, who was not in custody, was supported during the trial by his wife. The couple declined to comment on the case, other than to say they want the verdict reported.

The trial began Monday. On Tuesday, while the jury was out of the room, Wiberg raised the issue that if the jury began deliberations on Wednesday morning, the prospect of being sequestered during Game 7 of the Oilers playoff series against the Anaheim Ducks might encourage some jurors to rush to a verdict.

“I do share a little bit of concern,” Gill said, before determining that he would hold off on giving his instructions to the jury until Thursday morning.

The jury was sent to deliberate at about 10:30 a.m. Thursday, and returned a verdict at about 1 p.m. A lunch break was scheduled for between noon and 1 p.m.

The complainant testified Monday, but was not in court when the jury came back with its decision.