The decision to reopen the inquiry follows an admission by Van Houten that local police did not conduct a thorough initial investigation. Instead, authorities relied on information gathered by campus police, who failed to fully engage local law enforcement. Van Houten stated that the original decision not to bring criminal charges was influenced by the victim’s admission that she had voluntarily consumed alcohol and drugs, asserting that she did not claim to have been drugged without her knowledge.
This case has reignited debate over a specific provision in the New York State Penal Code known as the voluntary intoxication exclusion. Under current law, if a victim was voluntarily intoxicated, their assault does not technically constitute a crime unless they present with physical evidence of battery, such as bruises. Legal advocates describe this as a significant loophole that allows serious crimes to escape investigation and prosecution.
Will Rivera, a legal advocate, explained that under the existing statute, if a person voluntarily consumes enough alcohol or drugs, a subsequent sexual assault “does not technically constitute a crime.” The legal distinction hinges entirely on how the victim became intoxicated, creating a barrier where a morally reprehensible act is legally classified as non-criminal if the victim was voluntarily impaired.
Jane Doe’s attorney contends that campus police failed to follow up on the initial statement and did not thoroughly investigate the complaint despite evidence provided. Elizabeth da Trinidade-Asher, a lawyer and co-chair of the Justice Without Exclusion Coalition, noted that this legal framework fosters an environment where law enforcement may dismiss such cases as a waste of time because they are “technically not a crime in the books.” She stated that prosecutors often decline to take on these “messy” cases due to the statutory barriers.
For the past eight years, advocates in New York have lobbied for legislation to close this gap. The proposed bill would establish that sexual assault is a crime regardless of the victim’s voluntary intoxication. Minister Peace, co-chair of Community for a Cause, highlighted the inconsistency in the law, noting that a signature on a car purchase contract is invalid if the signer is visibly intoxicated, yet the same standard does not apply to sexual consent in New York.
The legislative effort has faced significant hurdles. The bill has passed the New York State Senate five times and recently obtained a record number of bipartisan co-sponsors. However, it has not been brought to a vote in the New York State Assembly, where Speaker Carl Heastie has not scheduled it for consideration. Advocates report that the legislation has faced resistance within the Assembly, with some members referring to it dismissively as the “ruining-drunk-sex bill.”
The Cornell case is viewed by legal experts as symptomatic of a broader failure in the New York State Penal Code. While the Chi Phi fraternity has been banned from campus, no criminal charges have been brought against the seven accused individuals. The current legal framework means that, under the existing statutes, the alleged incident at Cornell University is not recognized as a crime due to the victim’s voluntary intoxication, a distinction that Van Houten explicitly cited in his initial assessment of the case.
The re-opening of the investigation by the Tompkins County District Attorney’s office marks a procedural shift, but the underlying statutory barrier remains in effect. Unless the state legislature amends the Penal Code, the voluntary intoxication exclusion will continue to prevent criminal prosecution in similar cases where victims were voluntarily impaired at the time of the alleged assault.
