MN Supreme Court throws out rape conviction because intoxicated woman willingly consumed alcohol

[DonViejo]

Source: USA Today


Minnesota Supreme Court throws out rape conviction because intoxicated woman willingly consumed alcohol

Sarah Elbeshbishi
USA TODAY

The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that a person can’t be found guilty of sexually assaulting someone who is intoxicated if that person willingly ingested drugs or alcohol.

The ruling was released Wednesday after the case of Francois Monulu Khalil, who was convicted of a third-degree criminal sexual misconduct by a jury because the victim was drunk and mentally incapacitated. Khalil, a Minneapolis man, met his victim after she was denied entry to a bar for being too intoxicated.

The court’s unanimous decision was written by Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Pail Thissen. Thissen writes that the lower court’s definition of mentally incapacitated regarding the case "unreasonably strains and stretches the plain text of the statue" since the victim was intoxicated before she met Khalil, her attacker.

In order to be considered mentally incapacitated under Minnesota law, the alcohol must be given to the person without that person’s agreement, according to the court. Because the original case did not meet the standard for a victim to be mentally incapacitated, the state's high court granted a new trial for Khalil.



Read more: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/03/27/minnesota-supreme-court-drunk-rape-victim-not-incapacitated/7027981002

[mzmolly]

1. And if a man was raped under the same

circumstances?

[RVN VET71]

54. Then the good justices would have decried "sodomy" and kept the guy in prison.

[BobTheSubgenius]

2. I can barely believe I just read that.

WTF??? I suppose this means that any unconscious person is "incapacitated" and subject to the predations of people like Khalil?

I have trouble following the logic.

[mzmolly]

3. The law is illogical.

Not that it's pertinent, but how is alcohol administered without agreement? IV? I suppose one could spike a beverage, but it's pretty apparent when that happens.

I agree. It's absurd regardless.

[dsc]

26. by spiking a drink

though I think admittedly it is vastly more common for that to be a drug as opposed to alcohol.

[mzmolly]

31. One would have to spike several

I'd think? But yes, a drug is more likely to be undetected.

[dsc]

34. if one used ever clear that could do it

but drugs would be way more likely.

[mzmolly]

44. Yikes.

I guess so.

[Texin]

53. This ain't about the fuckin' ALCOHOL.

It's isn't the fact that a person willingly ingests alcohol (or drugs, etc.). It's the level of incapacitation that ensues therefrom and about a predator taking advantage of another person female or male in that condition.

This ruling makes absolutely no legal sense.

[mzmolly]

63. I'm not arguing in favor

of the law, or the ruling. Thus my opening remark "not that it's pertinent..."

It's isn't the fact that a person willingly ingests alcohol (or drugs, etc.). It's the level of incapacitation that ensues therefrom and about a predator taking advantage of another person female or male in that condition.

I agree. Either you're coherent enough to consent, or not.

[GregariousGroundhog]

6. Given the unanimous decision, I'm thinking the law was pretty poorly written

Assuming the law was poorly written, Minnesota needs to fix it... fast.

[Bettie]

21. Or the law was written to

do exactly what it does.

[stopdiggin]

17. have to agree. but also have to acknowledge

that a unanimous opinion says clearly that is exactly what the law says. No purpose in faulting the court. Have to wonder what the purpose of ever passing such a law was? But -- clearly on the lawmakers.

[usaf-vet]

38. So because she was drunk enough to not say NO.

In any case, this is BS.

[Warpy]

66. The "logic" just legalized rape

I sincerely hope this insane ruling will not stand.

Following their "logic," sex with a corpse is OK if the corpse was a suicide.

Sex with a comatose person is OK if they person is comatose from an accie3nt involving voluntary activity.

I can come up with lots of examples.

Assholes don't seem to realize consenting to getting hammered is NOT consenting to getting nailed. Ever.

[thesquanderer]

69. Great line! re: "consenting to getting hammered is NOT consenting to getting nailed" n/t

[RussBLib]

4. so women, if you drink, you can be raped, legally?

Damn, the misogyny, the racism, the hatred of the poor

sometimes, this country is just a fucking POS

[mzmolly]

5. Yes. If you dare to have a beer

beforehand.

[Claire Oh Nette]

10. Yep...

Skeevy guys can now have their wingmen send drinks over to a table full of ladies and then follow them out to the parking lot, rape away, and be in the clear since they didn't buy them drinks.

Sounds like this judge believes women who drink at all deserve to be raped.

Is it wrong to hope the judge is raped under the very circumstance he says is not rape?

But, no, we don't live in a misogynistic rape culture at all....

[Bettie]

22. Even if they buy them drinks

as long as the women aren't forced to drink them, they get a free rape pass!

[Claire Oh Nette]

23. RIght?

More laws written by old white men that absolve them from criminal conduct or will never apply to them.

[CaptainTruth]

35. NO! Not at all. That's a misunderstanding of the ruling.

The defendant was charged & convicted under a MN statute that required the victim to be "mentally incapacitated."

Specifically MN statute 609.341 Subd. 7, which states:

"Subd. 7. Mentally incapacitated. "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."

Note "administered to that person without the person's agreement"

In this situation the court ruled (correctly, whether we like it or not) that the alcohol was not "administered without the person's agreement," so that statute did not apply, & the conviction was overturned.

The court then granted the defendant a new trial, where he will be charged under an appropriate statute, & I'll bet $1000 he will be convicted of rape.

If you want to be mad at someone, be mad at the legislators who wrote 609.341 (which I think became law in 2020?) & made "mentally incapacitated" dependent on giving the victim something "without the person's agreement." I say NO! It shouldn't matter how the victim became mentally incapacitated, if they're incapacitated they're incapacitated, PERIOD, & it shouldn't matter how they got that way. To me, that's a major flaw in the law & folks should hound the MN state legislature to fix it.

[mzmolly]

47. Thanks for clarifying.

I hope there is ultimate justice.

[RussBLib]

51. Thanks, Captain

There I go, jumping to conclusions. So many details. And yes, the statute is ridiculous.

I did see there would be a new trial, but I wonder if this statute will get in the way.

[Karma13612]

70. Bingo! eom

[Texin]

74. That law needs to be re-written or voted out of existence.

It essentially codifies permission to rape regardless of another person's capacity to consent so long as any incapacitation caused by the ingestion of an intoxicant was the result of that person's willful ingestion of the intoxicant. So a person gets drunk as a consequence of having a couple of drinks, it's open season on them, and the rapist(s) get off scott free.

This is ridiculous. The inherent contempt of this law is out and out misogyny.

[Ocelot II]

7. It's a bad statute. It requires intoxication to be involuntary

in order for the victim to be considered mentally incapacitated. Sec. 604.341, subd. 7. says '"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 court can't rewrite the statute, so the legislature had better get busy.

[Dorn]

9. ... by this standard a patient under anesthetic can't be 'raped' when unconscious

That's unconscionable!

[Ocelot II]

13. Only if they were involuntarily anesthetized. But it's still a bad statute.

[Dorn]

8. OMZ: This is crazy, this is terrible, this is unbelievable.

[Fiendish Thingy]

11. Can this ruling be appealed to SCOTUS? Hope it becomes a rallying cry for 2022-24. Nt

[Ocelot II]

15. Probably not, because the court only followed the language of a bad statute,

and courts can't rewrite statutes, even bad ones. SCOTUS wouldn't hear it anyhow because the case doesn't raise a constitutional issue with nationwide impact. The remedy is to amend the statute.

[Fiendish Thingy]

37. Well, then amending the statute should be THE issue for the next MN election cycle. Nt

[Ocelot II]

39. Guess I'm gonna be contacting my state rep. Aisha Gomez, a Dem.

[HuskyOffset]

12. I am most definitely not a lawyer

nor did I stay at a paid overnight lodging that somehow imparts great wisdom, but I think it's important to remember that, if I understand it correctly, the only thing that appeals courts rule on is issues of law. In this case, because of that totally insane definition of mental incapacitation, the woman wasn't mentally incapacitated. Someone with more legal knowledge (nearly anyone who has even walked near a law school) please correct me if I'm wrong, but the court's hands were pretty much tied in this matter, that was the only ruling they could give consistent with the law as it currently stands.

What needs to be changed immediately is that ridiculous definition of mental incapacitation. No idea how that is done, though.

[Ocelot II]

16. What we do is contact our state representatives and demand that

they introduce an amendment to the statute that redefines mental incapacitation.

[elleng]

14. JFC!

(Scuse me, please.)

So it appears no alcoholic woman can ever be raped in Minnesota.

[ancianita]

18. A woman has the god-given constitutional right to run drunk and naked through the streets

and not be raped. Men do it all the time. I've seen the videos.

[stopdiggin]

19. Not the court. It's just an incredibly sh**ty law.

People have every right to be upset -- but at least make an effort to know where to cast blame.

[jalan48]

20. Four of the seven Justices are women.

[marble falls]

25. Not that getting it wrong isn't the problem, I'm surprised 4 out of 7 at least couldn't ...

... get it right, regardless their gender.

[Ocelot II]

40. They did get it right. They are stuck with the law as it's written.

Courts can't change statutes; the legislature has to do that.

[FBaggins]

28. And five of the seven were appointed by Democrats

Which makes it a near certainty that the reporting is faulty. It is very likely bad law that they don't have the option of ignoring.

[Ocelot II]

41. Exactly.

I think the law might have been intended in the first place to protect people who were given drugs like roofies, but the way it was written has the effect of not protecting those who had too much to drink voluntarily but whose intoxication was then taken advantage of. It needs to be amended, obviously, but that's not the court's job.

[marble falls]

24. So the consumption of intoxicants makes one a victim with no justice. That'll never stand ...

... what ever happened to equal protections? That's the biggest thing the Constitution talks about.

[ananda]

27. Seriously?

Another fucking trumper court!

[FBaggins]

29. Check again

Not even close.

[Ocelot II]

42. No, not even close. Courts don't have the power to rewrite bad statutes.

They were stuck with the language of a badly-written law. It's up to the legislature to fix it.

[niyad]

30. And the WAR ON WOMEN continues apace. Would you consider cross-posting this in

Women's Rights And Issues? Thanks in advance.

Even women can be complicit in this war.

[cstanleytech]

62. War on women? According to some its actually more along the lines of a poorly

written law which is what led to the court throwing it out which simply means the law needs to be written.

[niyad]

64. I understand that. This applies to that dreadful law. What would you call that law but part of the

War on Women??

[cstanleytech]

68. "What would you call that law but part of the War on Women??" Stupidity?

Would not be the first poorly written law that made it on the books and then later on got tossed out because of it.

[IronLionZion]

32. Time to update some of these badly written laws nt

[Swede]

33. This is still 2021,right?

WTF?

[SpankMe]

36. These people call themselves judges? Legal experts?

"In order to be considered mentally incapacitated under Minnesota law, the alcohol must be given to the person without that person’s agreement, according to the court."

Given to the person without that person's agreement? WTF does that mean? What's the distinction between "given" vs. "consumed"?

I can be "given" alcohol. But, I don't have to consume it. So, you have to force feed someone alcohol before they are considered incapacitated? How does that work, exactly?

These judges need to be removed and the law needs to be revisited. The logic and language of this doesn't hold up.

[Ocelot II]

43. That's what the statute says. Courts don't have the option of rewriting statutes,

even bad ones.

[Ocelot II]

45. Does anyone here understand how statutes vs. court decisions actually work?

Don't be slamming the court for this decision. Courts are bound by the plain language of statutes, and the definition of "mentally incapacitated" left them no wiggle room to ignore the statute and issue a contrary decision. Courts can interpret laws that are unclear, but this one is perfectly clear. It was probably intended by the legislature to protect people who were intentionally given drugs like roofies, but the result was also to exclude those who voluntarily drank too much and were taken advantage of. The statute needs to be amended but the court has no power to do that.

[CaptainTruth]

46. It looks like the problem with the law is being corrected...

From the article linked below:

[Justice Paul] Thissen acknowledged that a “commonsense understanding” of mentally incapacitated could include someone who drank voluntarily yet “cannot exercise judgment sufficiently to express consent” to sex. But that’s not how the statute was written.

-snip-

Thissen noted in his opinion that the Legislature has taken a recent interest in the statute.

In 2019, some lawmakers sought to expand the definition of the felony crime to include situations in which the victim voluntarily drank so much that she could not give consent. Instead, the Legislature created a working group to recommend changes.

A bill is advancing through the House that would add language to the third-degree statute, making it a felony to have sex with someone who is too intoxicated to consent, no matter how they got that way.

-snip-

Note: "A bill is advancing through the House that would add language to the third-degree statute, making it a felony to have sex with someone who is too intoxicated to consent, no matter how they got that way."

That's exactly what I said should happen in my post #35 above.

I hope they modify the law quickly, so the bastard can be charged under the new law & convicted of a third-degree felony again.

[link:https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/news/crime-and-courts/6952157-Felony-rape-charge-doesn%E2%80%99t-apply-if-victim-got-herself-drunk-Minnesota-Supreme-Court-rules|]

[patphil]

48. I don't think you can try someone under a law that was put in place after the crime was done.

It's a shame they can't though.

[RVN VET71]

56. Isn't that an ex-post-facto law?

And that goodness it can’t be used for acts committed before the law was passed. If it were possible to do so, the Georgia fascist-racist legislature would pass laws enabling the arrest and incarceration of half the black population for picnicking on public ground on “clean-up Saturdays”, or sitting on their front porches after 5:00 p.m. on the second Thursday of the month.

A legislature that makes it a felony to give water to someone waiting on a racist-spawned extreme long voting line would jump at the chance.

[CaptainTruth]

57. You're probably right.

In this case they (the prosecutors) will probably have to settle for the lesser charge.

It's a damn shame, & again, blame the idiots who wrote the law, not the court that correctly applied it!

[Marcuse]

60. No Ex Post Facto laws

[dlk]

49. Mens rights...

[oldsoftie]

50. I had NO idea this was a "thing" in so many states. nt

[Aussie105]

52. No self respecting man would take advantage of a drunk woman.

On the basis she is unable to give consent.

The law is an ass. Sometimes, a dumb ass.

Is this the 'she got drunk, so she was obviously asking for it' logic?

[KT2000]

55. I read somewhere elsewhere

the woman was unconscious and woke up to find herself being raped. The Rs have called upon the woman to use personal responsibility but what about the guy? Is he not expected to have any personal responsibility?

Wasn't this asshole attracted to her mental incapacity in the first place? This coward was looking for an easy mark BECAUSE she was incapacitated.

[keithbvadu2]

58. Precedent for defense for robbery, dui, and other crimes?

Precedent for defense for robbery, dui, and other crimes?

[keithbvadu2]

65. 1+

[GETPLANING]

59. Dangerous precedent.

Now, a guy can buy someone a drink, or just sit at a bar and watch people drink, and then rape them in the parking lot.
The defense?
They willingly had a few drinks.

[Evolve Dammit]

61. Such bullshit. Get a female drugged or drunk and it's her own fault?? Never changes. nt

[madville]

67. Sounds like it's the original prosecutor's fault for not applying the law correctly

Can’t blame the court for following the law as written.

Interesting that most default to this being anti-woman, many gay men get drugged or raped while drunk as well and this law would apply just as equally or unequally.

[Joinfortmill]

71. Boy, they hate women.

[FBaggins]

73. They?

The MN supreme court is majority female and majority Democrat... and ruled unanimously.