Article content continued

At the hospital she found out that her blood alcohol level was above .34 — more than four times the legal limit for driving in Canada. She also learned that the boy’s DNA had been found on her mouth and leg, The Guardian reported. The boy told police that the girl had consented to performing oral sex on him, but the girl said she could not remember anything that happened after the park. The teen was charged with forcible oral sodomy.

Forcible sodomy cannot occur where a victim is so intoxicated as to be completely unconscious at the time of the sexual act of oral copulation

But a March 24 ruling concluded that the law does not apply to a victim who is so drunk she has passed out.

“Forcible sodomy cannot occur where a victim is so intoxicated as to be completely unconscious at the time of the sexual act of oral copulation,” the court wrote after a trial judge threw the case out, and prosecutors appealed.

While state law lists a number of ways that a victim can be forced to perform oral sex — for example, through threats or violence — incapacitation due to alcohol is not one of them, the appeals court concluded.

“We will not, in order to justify prosecution of a person for an offense, enlarge a statute beyond the fair meaning of its language,” the court wrote.

Oklahoma’s rape statute makes it illegal to have vaginal or anal intercourse with someone who is too drunk to give consent, but the law against forcible oral sodomy does not include a similar provision.

Fu told The Guardian that he was “completely gobsmacked” by the ruling.

It creates a huge loophole for sexual abuse that makes no sense

“The plain meaning of forcible oral sodomy, of using force, includes taking advantage of a victim who was too intoxicated to consent,” Fu said. “I don’t believe that anybody, until that day, believed that the state of the law was that this kind of conduct was ambiguous, much less legal. And I don’t think the law was a loophole until the court decided it was.”