We probably should point out that this is entirely based on the jurisdiction. In the UK for example drunken consent is still consent, just as drunken intent is still intent.
I'm no expert on New York State Law, but a quick search reveals the key terms to be:
Under New York State law, a sexual offense occurs when certain sexual acts are perpetrated against a victim without his or her consent. The law defines both (1) the behavior and the physical nature (body parts, etc) of a sex offense and (2) the lack of consent involved.
"Lack of consent" is defined in New York State's Penal Law as occurring in the following circumstances:
...
...
...
OR
Mentally Incapacitated: when the victim is made temporarily incapable of understanding or controlling his or her conduct because a drug or other intoxicating substance (e.g. alcohol) was given to them without their consent.
I think the key thing there is... without their consent. There's been no indication either of them consumed alcohol (or stronger alcohol then they thought) against their wishes.
The only other option under New York law would appear to be;
OR Physically helpless: physically unable to indicate a lack of consent (e.g. because victim is unconscious or because of a physical disability that makes one unable to physically or verbally communicate lack of consent).
And there's been no indication that either were passed out and unable to indicate a lack of consent.
There's no mention I can find in the New York laws on rape/sexual assault that being drunk... however drunk... in anyway causes consent to become void as long as the drinking was consensual and neither party was physically helpless.
So, for better or for worse, on my understanding of New York law Peter and Michelle didn't rape each other.