How has the court considered whether a witness was intoxicated at the time of the event?

In People v. Singh (1937) 19 Cal.App.2d 128 and People v. Salladay (1913) 22 Cal.App. 552, the issue addressed was the intoxication of the witness at the time of the events to which he was testifying. Singh held that the trial court erred in precluding questions about whether a witness was intoxicated at the time of the events because such testimony is relevant to the credibility of the witness. (Singh, at p. 129.) In Salladay the issue was whether the trial court improperly sustained objections to questions about whether a witness was intoxicated at the time of the event in question. The court acknowledged that intoxication of a witness is relevant because intoxication can interfere with a person's "power of perception, the accuracy of his deductions and the integrity of his memory." (Salladay, at p. 555.) These cases do not suggest that the truthfulness of a witness is suspect simply because he was intoxicated at the time of the event.

Fourth, Huerra did not object to the instruction as given, thus resulting in a forfeiture of the argument.