In a Decision – C.R. v. M.T. (an "Unreported Decision") >> the Court Held:
The Appellate Division remanded the matter to the Trial Court for the application of the correct legal standard in a Sexual Assault Survivor Protection Act Matter.
The parties did not dispute that sexual contact occurred between them; the issue was whether plaintiff consented to the parties' sexual encounter. After plaintiff's friend went to bed, defendant claimed that plaintiff led her into the garage where they engaged in consensual sex. Plaintiff testified that she believed she had no alternative but to comply but made statements during the sexual act that the trial judge noted might constitute a revocation of consent.
On appeal, the court reversed the entry of the restraining order, ruling that a remand was necessary because SASPA drew no distinction between voluntary and involuntary intoxication in determining whether a victim lacked capacity to consent. The court ruled that, to prove lack of consent under SASPA, it was necessary to prove that plaintiff suffered a "prostration" of "faculties;" the court noted that the trial court failed to apply this standard.