BAKERSFIELD, Calif. (KERO) — A sexual assault case at Cornell University is drawing national attention to a question at the heart of criminal law: when does intoxication make it legally impossible to consent?
Jane Doe, a former Cornell student, says she was drugged and sexually assaulted by fraternity members in 2024. The men accused deny wrongdoing, and no criminal charges have been filed — but the case is now back under criminal review. New York Attorney General Letitia James has been appointed special prosecutor, renewing scrutiny of a state law that can make sexual assault cases harder to prosecute when intoxication was voluntary.
I spoke with Jared Thompson, a criminal law attorney and criminal law specialist with the State Bar, to find out how California would handle a similar case — and what prosecutors would actually have to prove.
California's legal threshold
Under California law, the test goes well beyond whether someone had been drinking. The standard is demanding, and proving it requires more than showing a person had consumed alcohol or drugs.
"The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person was so intoxicated that they didn't understand the nature of the act… they didn't understand the consequences," Thompson said.
The law also requires proof that the accused knew — or reasonably should have known — that the other party could not consent. That element can be just as difficult to establish as the level of intoxication itself.
Critically, California does not require a survivor to have been unconscious or physically unable to speak.
"A person doesn't have to be passed out drunk… they could still be moving and talking… and not really understand what they're doing," Thompson said.
Thompson said the biggest misconception people have is that any level of intoxication negates consent. Under California law, having a drink or two — or even exercising poor judgment while intoxicated — does not meet the legal threshold. A person must be so impaired that they genuinely cannot understand what they are doing or the consequences of their actions.
Voluntary vs. involuntary intoxication
Like New York, California recognizes a legal distinction between voluntary and involuntary intoxication — and that distinction can significantly shape how a case unfolds.
Thompson said involuntary intoxication, where someone is given drugs or alcohol without their knowledge, is far more damaging to those under investigation. Voluntary intoxication is more legally complex and generally more favorable to the defense, because it raises the argument that the person knowingly chose to drink or use drugs.
When multiple people at a gathering are drinking or using drugs, Thompson said, the legal picture becomes even more complicated. Everyone's judgment may be impaired at the time, making it harder to establish what any one person understood — or should have understood — about the situation.
Evidence and what matters most
Thompson said successful prosecution in these cases depends on layered, corroborating evidence. Video footage is among the most compelling, increasingly available through surveillance systems and cell phones.
Toxicology results — particularly blood samples collected close in time to the alleged incident — offer the most reliable measure of impairment.
Witness accounts matter, Thompson said, though their credibility can be undermined if those witnesses were also intoxicated at the time. He said investigators often turn first to the accused's own words — texts, social media posts and electronic communications that may reveal an awareness of the survivor's condition or constitute an admission that a sexual act occurred.
Cases built only on conflicting statements, without physical or digital corroboration, are among the hardest to prosecute — and Thompson said those are the cases where credibility becomes the central battleground.
Beyond the courtroom
Thompson noted that a courtroom standard is only part of a much broader conversation about consent.
Marvin Luna of the Open Door Network, which provides confidential support services in Kern County, said legal and personal standards are not the same thing.
"Consent always has to be very clear… and consent can be revoked at any time. Just because someone's okay with one thing doesn't necessarily mean that they'll be okay with another thing," Luna said.
Luna also noted that survivors can seek counseling, advocacy or help accessing a forensic exam — without first filing a police report.
Stay in Touch with Us Anytime, Anywhere:
