1. Drunk Driving Laws

In the context of drunk driving laws, “intoxication” is generally defined as the consumption of enough alcohol to impair physical and mental capacities so that a person’s driving skills are below the level expected of the reasonable and prudent driver.{footnote}Jennifer L. Pariser, Note: In Vino Veritas: The Truth About Blood Alcohol Presumptions In State Drunk Driving Law,  64 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 141, 142 n. 9 (1989), citing People v. Cruz, 399 N.E.2d 513, 517 (N.Y. 1979).{/footnote} 

1(a).  Driving “Under the Influence”

Criminal laws which deal with drunk driving come in many forms.  Some make it a crime to drive while “under the influence,” others to drive while having a blood-alcohol content above a certain percentage. 

2.  Relevance in Other Cases

2(a).  Negligence and Recklessness Generally

Evidence of intoxication is admissible to show a defendant’s failure to exercise due care,{footnote}McEwen v. City of Norman, 926 F.2d 1539 (10th Cir. 1991)(blood-alcohol content of motorcyclist admissible in estate’s civil rights action relating to collision with police car).

But see 26 ALR2d 359 (effect of failure to plead intoxication in vehicle cases).{/footnote} or to show recklessness.{footnote}Check 52 ALR2d 1337.{/footnote} 

2(b).  Negligent Hiring

Employees’ abuse of drugs and alcohol has been held relevant and admissible to prove their employers’ negligence in hiring them.{footnote}Brunet v. United Gas Pipeline Co., 15 F.3d 500 (5th Cir. 1994).{/footnote}

2(c).  Causation

In a product liability case alleging defective automobile seat belts, it has been held proper to exclude evidence that the motorist who collided with the plaintiff was intoxicated, because of the undue prejudice.{footnote}Hinds v. General Motors Corp.,  988 F.2d 1039 (10th Cir. 1993).{/footnote}

2(d).  Tort Damages

A tort plaintiff’s abuse of alcohol has been held relevant to the issue of damages.{footnote}Haney v. Mizell Mem. Hosp., 744 F.2d 1467 (11th Cir. 1984).{/footnote}

2(e).  Victim of Excessive Force

Evidence that the alleged victim had been drinking has been held admissible to show circumstances of officer’s use of deadly force, notwithstanding the danger of unfair prejudice.{footnote}Turner v. White, 980 F.2d 1180 (8th Cir. 1992).{/footnote}

2(f).  Intoxicaion as Negating Intent

Intoxication is not a defense, but evidence of intoxication may generally be offered by a criminal defendant to negate the intent element of the crime charged.  Thus, such evidence will generally be admissible where the defendant is charged with a specific intent crime,{footnote} [2401]People v. Reyes, 1997 WL 54575 (Cal. App. 2/11/97)(trial court erroneously excluded evidence in prosecution for receiving stolen goods, which requires proof of knowledge that goods were stolen).{/footnote} but not a general intent crime. The introduction of such evidence does not shift the burden of proof as to intent, which remains on the prosecution.{footnote} [2402]State v. Huffman, 643 N.E.2d 899 (Ind. 1995)(ordering new trials where trial court placed burden of proving  intoxication "defense" on defendants).{/footnote}

Some states bar defendants from using evidence of intoxication to negate intent.{footnote} [2403]Arizona, Montana, Texas.
            Check Montana v. Egelhoff, 116 S.Ct. 2013 (1996)(Montana law); Drinkard v. Johnson, 97 F.3d 751 (1996)(Texas law).{/footnote}  Such rules have been upheld as not being violative of the defendant’s constitutional right to present testimony.{footnote} [2404]Montana v. Egelhoff, 116 S.Ct. 2013 (1996).{/footnote}  See also COMPULSORY PROCESS CLAUSE.

3.  Impeachment

A witness may be impeached by evidence that he or she was intoxicated with alcohol or drugs at the time of the events in question,{footnote}Rivers v. Union Carbide Corp., 426 F.2d 633 (3d Cir. 1970).{/footnote} or is intoxicated during the trial,{footnote}Wilson v. United States, 232 U.S. 563, 58 L.Ed. 728, 34 S. Ct. 347 (1914).{/footnote} but generally may not be impeached by evidence that he or she is an alcoholic{footnote}Poppell v. United States, 418 F.2d 214 (5th Cir. 1969); Mary Ellen Enterprises v. Camex, Inc., 68 F.3d 1065 (8th Cir. 1995) (no evidence that witness had difficulty recalling or understanding events).
Check United States v. DiPaolo, 804 F.2d 225 (2d Cir. 1986).{/footnote} or addict.{footnote}United States v. DiPaolo, 804 F.2d 225 (2d Cir. 1986).  Contra United States v. Griffin, 382 F.2d 823 (6th Cir. 1967).{/footnote}  See also DRUGS AND DRUG USE; IMPEACHMENT; MEMORY.

4.  Proof of Intoxication

Intoxication may be proven through objective evidence such as chemical tests of a subject’s blood-alcohol concentration or through subjective evidence such as an eyewitness’ opinion.

4(b).  Other Tests

Intoxication may also be tested by use of field sobriety tests and tests of horizontal gaze nystagmus.  See FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS and HORIZONTAL GAZE NYSTAGMUS.

4(c).  Opinion Testimony

A witness may testify as to his or her opinion on whether another person was intoxicated,{footnote}CHECK United States v. Mastberg, 503 F.2d 465 (9th Cir. 1974).
 Tate v. Coonce, 97 Ill. App. 3d 145, 421 N.E.2d 1385 (3d Dist. 1981).{/footnote} or, in a Dram Shop Act case, was visibliy intoxicated.{footnote}Romano v. Stanley, 220 A.D.2d 5, 643 N.Y.S.2d 238 (1996) (opinion of forensic pathologist set forth in affidavit sufficient to defeat defendant’s motion summary judgement in Dram Shop Act case).{/footnote}

4(d).  Evidence of Drinking as Proof of Intoxication

In some states, evidence that a party was drinking is insufficient standing alone to establish intoxication.  It has been held that a federal court in a diversity case, however, may apply the federal rules of evidence as to the relevance of drinking and allow such testimony even in the absence of independent proof of intoxication.{footnote} McInnis v. A.M.F., Inc., 765 F.2d 240 (1st Cir. 1985){/footnote}

Bibliography

W. Frajola, Defending Drinking Drivers (1985)
S. Brent & S. Stiller, Handling Drunk Driving Cases (1985).
Cohen, Understanding And Using Blood Alcohol Concentration In Liquor Liability Cases, Practitioner’s Guide To Liquor Liability Litigation 67 (R.  Beitman ed. 1987).
Jennifer L. Pariser, Note: In Vino Veritas: The Truth About Blood Alcohol Presumptions In State Drunk Driving Law,  64 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 141 (1989).
Thompson, The Constitutionality of Chemical Test Presumptions of Intoxication in Motor Vehicle Statutes, 20 San Diego L. Rev. 301 (1983)
Fitzgerald & Hume, The Single Chemical Test for Intoxication: A Challenge to Admissibility, 66 Mass. L. Rev. 23, 29 (1981).