Davis v. Britton

By Judge H. W. Mackenzie, Jr.

The defendant contends that when he objected to the question put by plaintiffs counsel to a witness whether he could smell alcohol on the defendant’s breath, he should have been sustained; and when it was overruled and the witness answered yes, his motion for a mistrial should have been sustained.

It is the defendant’s contention that the rule in this state is that the mere odor of alcohol on one’s breath is not sufficient to prove intoxication, citing Burks v. Webb, 199 Va. 296 (1957). This statement is undoubtedly correct. And the rule is stated in so many words…