The Minnesota Supreme Court rejects the rape conviction because the victim chose to get drunk.

The Minnesota Supreme Court said that a man who had sex with a woman while she was passed out on his couch cannot be convicted of rape because the woman voluntarily got drunk before that. The decision came in the case of François Momulu Khalil, a 24-year-old Minneapolis man who was convicted of third-degree criminal sexual misconduct because the victim was drunk and a jury found her “mentally disabled”. Now Khalil will be able to retrace the case.

The woman, identified in court documents as JS, met Khalil outside a bar in Minneapolis in May 2017. The woman was denied entry because she was drunk after taking five shots of vodka and a prescription drug. Khalil invited her to a party, but when she arrived, he realized that there was no one else there. She “passed out” on Khalil’s couch and said she woke up with him sexually assaulting her.

Although Khalil’s conviction was upheld by an appeals court, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled unanimously that he cannot be found guilty of rape. In the decision written by Judge Paul Thissen, the state Supreme Court said that the lower court’s definition of the mentally disabled in this case “stretches and unreasonably stretches the plain text of the law” because JS was drunk before meeting Khalil. In the opinion of the state Supreme Court, Khalil could be charged with fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct, which is a serious misdemeanor and, if convicted, could mean up to a year in prison and a fine of up to $ 3,000. This is in stark contrast to the third-degree conviction, which could mean up to 15 years behind bars and a fine of up to $ 30,000.

The state Supreme Court told the legislature how the statute was drafted. Thissen writes that while there is a “common sense understanding” that the term “mentally disabled” could include someone who drank voluntarily, sexual conduct of the state have been written.

Surprising as it may be, Minnesota is hardly an exception. Most states say that for a victim to be considered mentally disabled, she must have been intoxicated against her will, notes the Washington Post. The Minnesota House of Representatives is currently considering a bill that would change the wording of the statute to make it clear that it is a crime to have sex with someone who is too intoxicated to give consent, regardless of how it was done. Kelly Moller, a Democratic state legislator, issued a statement after the court’s decision calling for the bill’s approval. “Victims who are intoxicated to the point of being unable to give consent have the right to justice. Our laws must clearly reflect that understanding, and today’s Supreme Court decision highlights the urgency that lawmakers have to close this and other gaps, ”she said.