Quote
waterfield
is simply the intent to do an act which is unlawful. It does not matter if the individual is too drunk or confused to know what he is doing or whether it is unlawful as long as he-or she-intends to do a particular act that is unlawful as opposed to an unintended or accidental act.

People have gotten off of this kind of thing though because they argue they were not consciously in control of their actions. I heard of a case where a guy got off for doing a similar thing because he claimed he was a sleep walker and he was sleep walking when it happened. Rath's defense is that he could not consciously have intended the action given his state of mind. All he has to do of course is plant reasonble doubt in people's minds.

The intent part of this law is crucial of course because accidently brushing up against someone in a crowded grocery line is not an intentional act of sexual misconduct.

But then Rath's people are claiming that being messed up and not really in conscious control of one's actions amounts to the same thing--a question of the actual intent.

I just think his legal team is trying to leverage that.

.,..