ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (6/12 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Click here to sign up now for ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18
Download a PDF of the schedule


MN: What last week’s Supreme Court ruling actually said — and didn’t say — about sexual assault and drinking in Minnesota

[ – 4/1/21]

A 20-year-old woman was standing outside a Dinkytown bar in May 2017 when a man, along with his male cousin and another male friend, invited her and her friend to a party. They agreed, and the man drove them to a house. But when they arrived, there was no party.

After arriving at the house, the woman — who had been denied entrance from the bar earlier for being overly intoxicated — passed out on a couch. She later woke up to the man, Francois Monulu Khalil, allegedly raping her. Khalil was later arrested and convicted of third-degree criminal sexual conduct, a conviction that in Minnesota has a maximum penalty of 15 years in prison and typically requires registry on a sex offender list.

Last week, the Minnesota Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Khalil’s case would be sent back to district court for a retrial because the original prosecution incorrectly used a statute in his case that defined the victim as “mentally incapacitated.”

The decision sparked outrage on social media, and the story was picked up by outlets around the country inferring that in Minnesota, someone cannot be raped if they voluntarily consumed alcohol before being sexually assaulted. But what Khalil did in this situation was still sexual assault, and still a crime under Minnesota law. The Supreme Court ordered a retrial under a different statute.

Read the full article

Look for sex-related bills in any state


We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please do not solicit funds
  • If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  • All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

So let me get this straight. If a woman gets drunk voluntarily and chooses to accompany a stranger which eventually leads to sex (which she may or may not have instigated), it’s still considered rape. She has no liability for her own actions if she regrets them when she sobers up, correct?

Wouldn’t the same logic also demand that if she drove while intoxicated and killed someone in a wreck, she should also be relieved of all liability? Why should she be allowed to avoid responsibility for some drunken acts but not others?

Last edited 2 months ago by Dustin

That’ a great analogy!


How’d do you then look at someone who took their meds as prescribed (voluntarily) then had something involuntarily happen due to a bad side effect, e.g. Ambien? Should they too be held accountable for the bad event or are prescription/over the counter meds in a different category than other mind/body altering items, e.g. alcohol, cocaine, heroin, etc? Should there be two different categories then? A lot of meds have bad side effects which are possible.

@ TS:

In my line of thinking, if voluntarily being under the influence of ANY drug – be it alcohol, prescription meds, or whatever else – cannot be a defense if a crime is committed, then it can’t be used to establish victimhood either.

People need to return to being responsible for their own safety. Screaming for someone else to be held accountable for their own stupidity is just idiotic.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x