In May 2017, a Minnesota female, J.S., had her life turned upside down. But first, J.S. consumed about five shots of vodka and a single pill of a prescription narcotic. J.S. and her friend then went to the Dinkytown neighborhood of Minneapolis. Due to J.S.’s intoxication, she was denied entry to bar. Around that same time, J.S. and her friend were approached by three men, including Francios Khalil. These men invited them to a house party in North Minneapolis.
There was no house party.
J.S., upon arriving at their destination, immediately collapsed on a couch and blacked out. She woke up to Mr. Khalil raping her. Afterwards, J.S. told her friend that she was raped, and she went to a local hospital to have a rape kit taken. Three days later, J.S. reported what happened to police.
Prosecutors chose to charge Mr. Khalil with third-degree sexual assault with a mentally incapacitated or physically helpless person, rather than fifth-degree non-consensual sexual conduct. Mr. Khalil agreed his conduct constituted fifth-degree non-consensual sexual conduct. But since that was only a misdemeanor (because Mr. Khalil was a first-time offender), prosecutors sought to charge him with a more serious crime (with a much longer potential prison sentence).
A jury convicted Mr. Khalil of third-degree sexual assault. But last month, the Minnesota Supreme Court, voting 6-0, reversed his conviction. They concluded that the definition of a “mentally incapacitated,” to qualify as third-degree sexual assault, does not include a person who voluntarily consumes alcohol.
Here’s what the provision, Minn. Stat. § 609.341, subd. 7, currently 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.
In other words, to be “mentally incapacitated”, a substance must be “administered to that person without the person’s agreement”. The Minnesota Supreme Court found that the phrase, “administered to that person without the person’s agreement,” qualified all of the preceding antecedents, including “a person under the influence of alcohol, a narcotic, anesthetic, or any other substance,”—rather than simply a person under the influence of “any other substance”. It also concluded that the Minnesota legislature, which has the right to define most crimes in Minnesota, decided that the “act of surreptitiously administering an intoxicating substance to a person such that the person was deprived of judgment to provide a reasoned consent is an aggravating circumstance meriting more severe punishment.”
The Minnesota Supreme Court also noted that if the Minnesota Legislature intended for the definition of mentally incapacitated to include voluntarily intoxicated persons, it could amend the law.
Let’s hope they do so promptly. In the meantime, Mr. Khalil will likely face a charge of fifth-degree sexual assault, and will likely plead guilty to this gross-misdemeanor (as a first-time offender. By the way, if he was a repeat offender, he could be penalized by up to seven years in prison). The Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision will likely mean less than a year behind bars for Mr. Khalil, rather than up to fifteen years in prison.
You can read the entire decision here: State of Minnesota v. Francios Khalil.
Comments