Which of the following does NOT constitute a defense to sexual assault?

Exceeding the legal limit of force does not constitute a defense to sexual assault because it directly relates to the nature of the act itself rather than addressing the legality or reasonableness of the accused's state of mind or circumstances at the time. In sexual assault cases, consent is paramount; any force used must be within the bounds of consent given by the complainant. If the accused exceeds what is legally acceptable in terms of force, this could result in a clear violation of the law, establishing grounds for a conviction rather than a defense.

In contrast, self-induced intoxication of the accused can be relevant in assessing intent or the ability to recognize consent, although it does not necessarily absolve the accused of responsibility. Lack of knowledge regarding the complainant's consent can sometimes be considered, especially in discussions of mens rea. Misinterpretation of the complainant's intentions may also be presented as a defense in certain scenarios, focusing on whether the accused genuinely believed consent was given, even if that belief was erroneous. In all these cases, the accused’s state of mind or subjective experience is addressed, which is not the focus when discussing the legal boundaries of force applied during an alleged assault.