Posted on 03/26/2021 12:29:39 AM PDT by grundle
Lesser charge may have been better fit, attorneys note. Legislature considers bill toughening law
The Minnesota Supreme Court on Wednesday overturned a Maple Grove man’s felony conviction for sexual assault because the victim got herself drunk before the incident.
Francois Khalil, then 20, picked up an intoxicated woman outside a Dinkytown bar in 2017, took her back to a North Minneapolis home and raped her after she passed out on a couch, the woman testified, according to court records. A Hennepin County jury in 2019 convicted him of third-degree criminal sexual conduct.
Khalil’s attorney argued the felony charge does not apply because that statute is for cases in which the victim had drugs or alcohol administered to her without her agreement.
A divided Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed Khalil’s conviction, but the state Supreme Court disagreed, overturning the conviction and granting Khalil a new trial.
Justice Paul Thissen wrote that the prosecution’s interpretation of third-degree assault “unreasonably strains and stretches the plain text of the statute.”
The relevant section of third-degree criminal sexual conduct applies to cases where the victim is “mentally incapacitated” due to drugs or alcohol that was “administered to that person without the person’s agreement.”
Thissen wrote that the Legislature clearly intended to limit the statute to situations where the victim did not voluntarily drink to intoxication. Rather, it’s for situations where the victim was “given alcohol surreptitiously (for example, when someone ‘spikes’ a punch bowl at a party),” he wrote.
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.
In Khalil’s case, his accuser had swallowed one pill of a prescription drug and five shots of vodka before a bouncer refused to let her into the Dinkytown bar.
Thissen wrote that attorneys for both sides agree the facts of the case constitute a crime, but a less serious one: fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct, a gross misdemeanor, which carries lighter penalties. Prosecutors did not try Khalil on that charge but now could look to recharge him. LEGISLATION
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 the victim 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.
Chief sponsor Rep. Kelly Moller, DFL-Shoreview, issued a statement Wednesday urging the bill’s passage.
“Victims who are intoxicated to the degree that they are unable to give consent are entitled to justice. Our laws must clearly reflect that understanding, and today’s Supreme Court ruling highlights the urgency lawmakers have to close this and other loopholes throughout our (criminal sexual conduct) law,” she said.
I think Minnesota is basically GONE. If a man sees a woman who is incapacitated and therefore helpless, and takes advantage of the situation by raping her, then he needs some serious jail time. If she would have refused his advances while sober, and he took advantage of her drunkenness, then he needs to pay a price. And I bet the idiots on the Minnesota Supreme Court (I have developed a distaste and disrespect for Supreme Courts after the fraudulent election) never considered that maybe, based on their idiotic ruling, some unscrupulous lowlife “men” might intentionally get a woman drunk or drugged, since then he could rape her with impunity.
A judge upholding the letter of the law. Is that still legal?
judging from the article, the SCOMN made the proper call and said they had to apply the law as it is written. The guy will probably do SOME jail time; it was the prosecutors mistake to overcharge the case.
The MN Court followed the law as written. What are you talking about?
Read the article fully.
Actually the law they are talking about said that it can only be applied if the predator surreptitiously or not gets the victim inebriated.
They admit that there is a flaw in the law.
As others have pointed out, the law itself is the problem. The idiots in the Minnesota legislature worded the law such that it does not take into account someone who got drunk outside the sphere of influence of the perpetrator. It’s just badly worded.
Despite the less than optimal outcome in this case, these are the kinds of decisions we *need* judges to hand down. If the laws are badly written and badly applied, those doing so need to be held responsible.
She was passed out on a couch and he raped her? What does it matter who bought the drinks?
Bump
Maybe just charge him with rape.
Do not help any women in any way. Immediately increase your distance, and keep increasing it.
WTF?!
if a woman is drunk she’s a free rape target in MN ????
stalkers going to watch for when their targets drink at home...
Again, badly worded law and a prosecutor overcharging an offense. The guy should have been charged with second degree criminal sexual conduct, i.e., second degree rape. He was charged with third degree rape instead. This is a lot like someone getting charged with a hate crime for committing assault instead of just aggravated assault.
It’s the difference between second degree and third degree rape in Minnesota, apparently.
They could but bottles of booze by the curb.
I’m having trouble caring one way or another about this case. The guy has done some jail time for a sexual assault situation.
I wouldn’t want him as a roommate.
What else is there?
At least the judge didn’t say “she asked for it”.
I’m thinking the perp is not white or from a “different culture...”
Based on what the law states this is the correct ruling and it should have been a unanimous decision.
Any other ruling would have been legislation from the bench.
The law is against drugging someone involuntarily. She wasn’t drugged involuntarily.
The problem here is the prosecution overreached and was incompetent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.