Loathsome lawyer wins Pyrrhic victory for having sex with coked-up, drunk teenager

The Supreme Judicial Court today dismissed Gary LeBlanc's conviction on a charge of drugging a person for unlawful sexual intercourse because he only made the cocaine and beer available to her but did not force her to consume it.

However, the ruling upholds LeBlanc's convictions on two counts of rape and one count each of indecent assault and battery, distribution of cocaine, procuring liquor for a person under 21 and distribution of cocaine in a school zone, because the 18-year-old, who had previously and repeatedly rebuffed his efforts at sex, was so bombed out of her mind she was unable to give consent for intercourse - or keep him off her.

According to the ruling, LeBlanc, at the time a 50-year-old lawyer in Gardner, had been rebuffed several times in his efforts to bed the teen - who at least once outright laughed at him. But she attended a 2004 Super Bowl part at her aunt's house, which he also attended and where she accepted his offer of cocaine. Over the next day, she went to his place twice for beer and more cocaine. Even in her drugged state, she resisted him, but eventually consumed so much beer and coke - 12 beers on an empty stomach - that by the time her friends managed to get her home, her father noticed she "looked like a zombie."

The SJC ruled that the state law on drugging a person for sex requires some element of force or coercion and that merely providing access to a banquet of alcohol and drugs is not the same as "giving" somebody those substances.

Complete ruling.



      Free tagging: 


        Twisted Logic

        By on

        I didn't read the complete ruling, but this seems weird. The court seems to be saying that just providing access to drugs or alcohol is not sufficient....how does this differ from the 'cool parents' who get charged for having a party for under-aged kids? After all, all they are doing is providing access, they are not forcing them. So I guess to have the charge stick one has to slip something into a drink seripicously or tie the teenager to the bed and shove a funnel in their mouth?

        At least the other charges held up.

        Different situations, different laws

        By on

        Caveat: IANAL, etc. But drugging somebody to have sex with them would be covered under a different law than putting out a 30-pack for a bunch of teens in your house. One is rape, the other is breaking the law against providing alcohol to minors.


        By on

        replace "rape" with "unlawful sexual intercourse" and your comment is valid. the rape charges were upheld.


        By on

        Drugging somebody to have sex with her is still rape. The main difference here is he now has two rape convictions instead of three.

        different law, different wording...

        By on

        the issue here isn't that he gave her drugs or alcohol while she was underage. he was charged with "Drugging persons for sexual intercourse" and that had the specific language the court ruled on. the law reads, in its entirety:

        "Whoever applies, administers to or causes to be taken by a person any drug, matter or thing with intent to stupefy or overpower such person so as to thereby enable any person to have sexual intercourse or unnatural sexual intercourse with such person shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for any term of years not less than ten years."

        so the courts focused on the first part of that, and stated he did not apply, administer, or cause the drugs and alcohol to be taken. he merely made them available.

        giving alcohol or underage persons is a totally different law. you don't have to make them take it, you simply need to make it available to them.

        I can only assume that the

        I can only assume that the use of the cocaine had nothing to do with the "school zone." If the legislature wants to increase the penalty for cocaine sale or use, they can do so. The vast majority of "school zone" charges have had nothing to do with school kids. The law as written simply provides for "hot spots" - step over the line, and the prosecutors get to charge you with a new crime.

        Conveniently Confused

        By on

        I guess I'm not surprised to see yet another Judicial Decision overturned on a interpretation of a charge...
        It makes me wonder if a Lawyer might know those interpretations ? That seems convenient..... The "Lothsome Lawyer" catches a break because he didn't pour the beer or blow the coke into his victum, he mearly had the "Party Favors" available and when she indulged, he enjoyed himself..... This definately leaves me Conveniently Confused........