Legal Question in Criminal Law in Michigan

You are over-simplifying the legal issues here. First, the level of intoxication that makes it illegal to drive a vehicle (being 'visibly impaired' or 'under the influence' or having 0.08% or more blood-alcohol level) is NOT the same as the level of intoxication that deprives a person of the free-will to consent to have sex or that renders a suspect incapable of entertaining a specific intent required for a certain crime. Those consent/intent issues don't have a specific blood-alcohol level ... but are in reality a much higher degree of intoxication than the threshold level that for illegally unsafe driving on open roads. Second, "date rape" is not a specific type of criminal sexual offense charge, and is not an element in a CSC. It is a colloquial term. Third, whenever the issue of consent is reviewed by police, prosecutors, defense attorneys and ultimately juries, the whole picture (totality of the circumstances) has to be evaluated. This includes the level of sobriety of everyone (suspect, victim, witnesses), because intoxication can affect observation and memory. So it all gets weighed. In the sketchy facts you gave us, if the suspect/defendant is intoxicated and the victim/complainant is sober, then intoxication isn't an issue unless the crime is a specific intent crime and the jury says that the voluntary intoxication was so high as to deprive the person of the ability to form that intent. (This is all fact-driven in each case.) The sober-versus-drunk scenario you stated doesn't tell anyone who is "culpable" in and of itself. An intoxicated person can commit CSC on a sober person, and vice-versa. And if a victim has been drinking, that doesn't give someone a free ticket to commit a sex act -- this boorish attitude would essentially say to a victim that they 'got what they deserved' or that 'if you get drunk, it's a free-for-all'. Thankfully, our society's lawmakers don't think like that. But the victim's intoxication can factor in on whether the person did or did not consent because the jury has to decide whether the victim accurately recalls events. There are also cases where a victim is SO intoxicated that he/she is legally incapacitated (e.g., "passed-out drunk"), and someone taking advantage of that incapacitation can be charged on that theory alone.