Rape victims not "mentally incapacitated" if they got drunk on their own, Minn. Supreme Court rules

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Tweet text:
CBS News
@CBSNews
Rape victims not "mentally incapacitated" if they got drunk on their own, Minnesota Supreme Court rules

Rape victims not "mentally incapacitated" if they got drunk on their own, Minnesota Supreme Court...
More serious charge does not apply if the sexual assault victim consumed alcohol or drugs voluntarily, Minnesota Supreme Court says.
cbsnews.com
4:29 AM · Mar 26, 2021

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rape-victims-designation-drunk-voluntarily-minnesota-supreme-court/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab7e&linkId=114588507

A person who is sexually assaulted while intoxicated does not fit the designation for a more serious charge if he or she consumed the alcohol or drugs voluntarily, the Minnesota Supreme Court said in a ruling released Wednesday.

The opinion stems from the case of Francois Momulu Khalil, a Minneapolis man who was convicted of third-degree criminal sexual misconduct because the victim was drunk and considered by the jury to be "mentally incapacitated." The woman met Khalil after she was refused entry to a bar because she was too intoxicated.

In a unanimous decision written by Justice Paul Thissen, the state Supreme Court said the lower court's definition of mentally incapacitated in this case "unreasonably strains and stretches the plain text of the statute" because the victim was drunk before she met her attacker. To meet the definition, the alcohol must be administered to the person under its influence without that person's agreement, the high court ruled.

Some are worried about the ruling's ramifications. Democratic state Rep. Kelly Moller said it shows the urgent need to update the state's criminal sexual conduct statute, including by closing what she calls the intoxication loophole. She has introduced a bill to amend the statute.

*snip*

[Ferrets are Cool]

1. I would like to express what I would like to see happen to these court officials, but

it would probably be a reason to ban me.

[KarenS]

3. amen to that!! n/t

[Ms. Toad]

7. They were just doing their job. Focus your anger on the state legislature which wrote the law. n/t

[Liberty Belle]

2. Dangerous ruling. Drunk or no, a woman has a right to say no.

The bar would be a little higher for a conviction of rape if he's saying she consented (his word against hers), but certainly if there are physical signs of forcible rape, the fact that she's drunk should not matter. Many young people don't yet know their limits on alcohol -- do we want every young person to be vulnerable to any rapist who sees their vulnerability and abuses them?

[Ms. Toad]

8. The court noted this in its opinion.

We are mindful of and concerned with the fact that, as the Minnesota County Attorneys Association points out in its amicus brief, nearly half of all women in the United States have been the victim of sexual violence in their lifetime—including an estimated 10 million women who have been raped while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. With this level of sexual violence, legislatures across the country have enacted statutes aimed at prioritizing consent and protecting intoxicated victims of rape and sexual assault, regardless of how the victim became intoxicated. See, e.g., Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.010 (defining “mental incapacity”—for the purpose of second-degree rape under Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.050—as a “condition existing at the time of the offense which prevents a person from understanding the nature or consequences of the act of sexual intercourse whether that condition is produced by illness, defect, the influence of a substance or from some other cause”). These statutory definitions protect intoxicated victims of rape regardless of how they became intoxicated. But today we undertake the task of interpreting the definition of “mentally incapacitated” that the Minnesota Legislature enacted in Minn. Stat. § 609.341, subd. 7 (2020).

[Polybius]

18. The ruling isn't about a woman saying no

It said if a person is drunk and consents to sex, it's not rape. If the person is drunk and says no and you force her to have sex, it's still rape.

[TwilightZone]

4. Sounds like the problem is with the law and not necessarily the ruling.

Time to fix the law, as Rep. Moller noted.

[Ms. Toad]

6. Absolutely correct. n/t

[Ms. Toad]

5. Courts don't pull decisions out of thin air.

It is best to go to the opinion and figure out why they ruled that way.

The legislature, in 2020, revised the definition of mentally incapacitated. The court here merely interpreted the statute.

Once again, the Legislature defined mentally incapacitated in Minn. Stat § 609.341, subd. 7 as follows: Mentally incapacitated” means that a person under the influence of alcohol, a narcotic, anesthetic, or any other substance, administered to that person without the person’s agreement, lacks the judgment to give a reasoned consent to sexual contact or sexual penetration.

. . .

The sentence is structured as an easily digestible series of similar nouns that describe intoxicating substances (alcohol, narcotic, anesthetic, or any other substance) followed by a qualifier (“administered to that person without the person’s agreement”) that, as we discuss below, sensibly applies to each noun.

. . .

This textual structure is a classic example of the series qualifier rule of grammar, which states that “[w]hen there is a straightforward, parallel construction that involves all nouns or verbs in a series, a . . . [qualifier] normally applies to the entire series.” Antonin
Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 147 (2012).

So, while the outcome stinks, the court was not making junk up. It was applying the statute the legislature wrote. The justified anger here needs to be directed at the state legislature, not the court. The court is not empowered to correct mistakes by the legislature. And - if this outcome is not what the state legislature intended, it needs to fix it.

[Ferrets are Cool]

10. We will agree to disagree, strongly.

IF a female is passed out from her own volition, it does NOT give a person with a dick the RIGHT to FUCK her. And if that is what they contrived from that statute, they ARE making shit up out of thin air.

[Ms. Toad]

11. The courts have to interpret the law, as written.

The law defines “Mentally incapacitated” as a person under the influence of alcohol . . . administered to that person
without the person’s agreement.

That is what the legislature wrote into the law.

The courts didn't suggest it was right - in fact, they expressed grave concern about the law. BUT it is not their job to define crimes. ONLY the legislature gets to do that. In fact, they did that a year ago when they expressly defined mental incapacity to require that the alcohol be administered without the woman's consent.

Your anger is misdirected - it needs to be directed at the legislature, which wrote the law. The courts have no power to change it.

[Ferrets are Cool]

12. So, you are indicating that I am correct?

That any human with a dick can fuck any drunk/passed out female he wants (in that state) without fear of being charged with rape. As long as HE didn't supply her the alcohol? Am I correct with my understanding?

[Zeitghost]

13. I may be reading this wrong

But I don't believe that is what the court is saying. The article could be a bit more specific, but I believe it is still a crime, just not as serious of one. Still needs to be fixed, but I don't believe this legalizes rape if the victim is intoxicated.

Either way, the legislature needs to shore this mistake up ASAP.

[Ms. Toad]

14. The court interpreted the law passed in 2020 to mean the victim is not mentally incapacitated

unless the perpetrator administered the alcohol to the victim.

Beyond that you are making broad generalizations that aren't accurate. The ruling was very narrow - the court interpreted one phrase in a complex set of laws - and decided that - but for - the misinterpretation by the lower courts, the jury might not have found him guilty. He's going back for a new trial (or perhaps a plea bargain).

Minnesota doesn't have the crime of rape - so no matter what the perpetrator does, he can't be charged with rape. He would be charged with Criminal Sexual Conduct in the 1st - 5th degree.

There are multiple ways to commit criminal sexual conduct under Minnesota aw. Sexually penetrating (or engaging in sexual contact with) someone who is incapacitated is only one of them. Another is sexually penetrating (or engaging in sexual contact with) someone who is "physically helpless." In your hypothetical, if they are passed out, they may be physically helpless.

"Physically helpless" means that a person is (a) asleep or not conscious, (b) unable to withhold consent or to withdraw consent because of a physical condition, or (c) unable to communicate nonconsent and the condition is known or reasonably should have been known to the actor.

I don't know how specific the charging documents need to be in Minnesota (Minnesota criminal is no my area of expertise). BUT assuming they are permitted to prove criminal sexual conduct in the 3rd degree by proving any of the various means of committing it (rather than the specific way they apparently tried to prove it this time), the prosecution may be able to make a different argument next time - that she was physically helpless.

[I_UndergroundPanther]

9. Ironically

Mens penises are shrinking and thier sperm counts are plummeting because of pollution.

Just wished that pollution only hit rapists and abusers sociopaths,narcissists and the entire right wing.

For the rapists not only shrink it via pollution make it all rot off and make them a vegetable. I wish every rapist would suffer and die. And while they suffer and die,thier genitals rot and fall off and they get to live through it and live a while suffering before they die.

[lostnfound]

15. Would they have ruled this way for male-on-male attack?

I doubt it.

[ck4829]

16. Maybe rape victims need to pick up a gun and fire some shots into the air

Then they become "mentally ill" and "victims of society".

[DenaliDemocrat]

17. So if she does shots with you

You can rape her?

[leftyladyfrommo]

19. This is the stupidest thing I ever heard.

What the fuck is wrong with men these days? It's become just whatever you can get away with? Are those the rules?

My father would have been aghast at this whole conversation. If someone has too much to drink you make sure they get home safely.

It's not safe for women anymore. It's not safe anywhere.

[Mad_Dem_X]

20. +1

It's infuriating.