On October 3, Professor Jonathan Witmer-Rich was quoted in an article on Cleveland.com titled, “The Cornell 7 case highlights a loophole in New York’s rape laws. Ohio takes a different approach.” The article explains a key difference between New York law and Ohio law regarding rape and sexaul assault, related to the the Cornell University rape investigation.
Professor Witmer-Rich explained that under Ohio law, a person may be legally incapable of consenting to sexual activity if they are “substantially impaired.” While this standard is not very specific, he explained that a person’s “substantial impairment” can be proven by evidence about how well they were able to carry out basic functions, like walking and talking.
New York, in contrast, requires proof either that the defendant drugged the victim or that the victim was actually unconscious or unable to communicate. A victim’s “substantial impairment” due to voluntary intoxication is not a sufficient basis for a rape conviction under New York law. Professor Witmer-Rich explained that this feature of New York law would make it more difficult to obtain a conviction in the circumstances alleged in the Cornell case.
