MN Supreme Court reverses rape conviction because woman.....

Post Reply New Topic

The Minnesota Supreme Court has ordered a new trial for a man convicted of raping a woman who was drunk. The justices ruled that the state's definition of "mentally incapacitated" does not include voluntarily inebriated victims.

Hennepin County prosecutors say that in May of 2017, Francois Khalil encountered a woman outside a Dinkytown bar who’d just consumed five shots of vodka and a prescription narcotic. Khalil invited her and a friend to a party.

Court documents say Khalil and two other men drove them to a house in Minneapolis, where there was no party. The woman, identified only by her initials, testified that she blacked out on the couch and later woke up to find Khalil raping her.

In 2019, a jury in Hennepin County convicted Khalil of third-degree criminal sexual conduct involving a victim who was impaired.

But Wednesday, the Minnesota Supreme Court overturned his conviction, ruling that the state’s legal definition of “mentally incapacitated” only applies if a victim was given drugs or alcohol against their will — not if they consumed the substances voluntarily.

Khalil’s attorney Will Walker said the justices agreed with his contention that the trial judge gave incorrect instructions to the jury.

“They adopted our arguments. They adopted the opinion of the 30-page dissent from the Court of Appeals, and my arguments from the trial court and came out with the correct ruling. And we’re very, very pleased about that,” Walker said.

Khalil, now 24, is serving a five-year sentence at the Faribault state prison, but Walker said his client may soon be released.

Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Paul Thissen said because the meaning of the statute is clear “we apply that meaning and not what we may wish the law was or what we think the law should be.”

Thissen noted that the Minnesota Legislature is “institutionally better positioned than courts” to make public policy, and pointed to efforts to overhaul the criminal sexual conduct statute.

Survivors of sexual assault are urging Minnesota lawmakers to close what they say is a big loophole in state law.

Lindsay Brice, law and policy director at the Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault, said the ruling was no surprise because the statute’s language doesn’t leave much room for interpretation.

“It makes it very clear that this issue needs to be fixed at the Legislature,” Brice said.

DFL Rep. Kelly Moller of Shoreview is sponsoring legislation that would change the law to say that anyone who’s intoxicated is incapable of consenting to sex even if they consumed alcohol or drugs voluntarily. Moller, who’s also an assistant Hennepin County attorney, said this would give prosecutors additional tools.

“This is something that will make a difference for those who do come forward and have these sets of circumstances, that their cases will at least be chargeable.”

Abby Honold, a sexual assault survivor and advocate, says this intoxication loophole has been a problem for years. She says it’s a roadblock for survivors seeking to press charges who have an otherwise solid case.

“There are a lot of people who are told when they report now, and when their case is referred to a prosecutor that essentially their sexual assault was technically legal. It’s always so heartbreaking to have to hear that from yet another survivor who came forward and reported,” Honold said.

Among other things, Moller’s bill would also create a new crime of sexual extortion, where a perpetrator makes threats that do not involve physical harm. The measure also raises the age in certain offenses against juveniles from under 13 to under 14.

While the bill has bipartisan support in both chambers, its companion measure in the Senate has yet to go before a committee.

Don't even start me.

Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Paul Thissen said because the meaning of the statute is clear “we apply that meaning and not what we may wish the law was or what we think the law should be.”

Thissen noted that the Minnesota Legislature is “institutionally better positioned than courts” to make public policy, and pointed to efforts to overhaul the criminal sexual conduct statute.

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.

A red state would try to find ways to punish her for her alleged “adultery”.

Given there are a number of "red states" - Can you point out examples of laws in any of them which do this?

"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.

So basically if you slip her a "roofie" your a rapist.

If the girl is already drunk of her own volition then she's allowed herself to be open for sex without consent?

How does that exactly work in the minds of the founding fathers who wrote that law?

On a basic reading of the law, as long as the potential victim is aware of the substance being administered and agrees to it, anything that follows on from that is not covered by this statute, which makes me wonder if in similar circumstances in the past charges hadn't been pressed as a result of the wording, and so that may be why it was retained with that wording for so long - there would be much less publicity to bring it to the attention of the legislature and so have it updated.

Getting voluntarily drunk does NOT justify rape!

a) Getting drunk is not a crime. Rape is.
b) Even if getting drunk was a crime, rape would not be an appropriate punishment
c) Two wrongs don't make it up to right
d) When she got drunk she wasn't told it was a package deal
e) We been through it before and I thought we all agreed that raping someone drunk is still a rape. Why is it that we have to go to square 1 with it and start this discussion all over again?! Especially with the court actually deciding something just the OPPOSITE to what I thought was an established common wisdom?!

Could it be in the 17th century a woman who agreed to consume liquid libation of the alcoholic persuasion were no doubt wenches of unsavoury character and worthy of a trist?

Further research suggests it was created with that wording in 1975: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/1975/0/ ... r/374/pdf/ if I understand the document correctly.

The woman, identified only by her initials, testified that she blacked out on the couch and later woke up to find Khalil raping her.