A new defense? " I am too cheap"

I guess if you are charged with impaired maybe claim you are too cheap to get drunk. I think this guy is maybe a cheap drunk. No pun intended.


Whitehorse man wins breathalyzer challenge, claiming too 'cheap' to be impaired
Last Updated: Tuesday, January 8, 2008 12:29 PM CT

CBC News
A Whitehorse man has won a court challenge of his breathalyzer test, after telling a judge he is too "cheap" to buy enough drinks to be impaired.
In a written decision, territorial court Judge Cunliffe Barnett dismissed impaired driving charges against Thomas Wood, who argued that he could not have consumed enough beer on March 30, 2007, to have had a blood alcohol level above the legal limit of 0.08.
On March 30, Wood admitted to consuming some alcohol that night, failed the police's roadside breathalyzer test and was arrested. Further tests showed readings of 0.13.
Wood testified at his trial in December that he drank a pint and a glass of draft beer over the course of 2½ hours while talking with his employer at a hotel bar after work that evening.
As an aircraft mechanic, he does not drink on the job, he told the court, adding that he also doesn't drink much after work.
"Mr. Wood says that he is 'quite cheap,' and that for that and other reasons, it is his custom to restrict his drinking, as he says he did that evening," Barnett wrote in his decision.
A blood-alcohol expert from Vancouver backed Wood's argument, testifying that he needed to drink nearly four bottles of beer in order for him to have a high enough blood alcohol level to fail the breathalyzer test.
Barnett cited past Supreme Court of Canada rulings in deciding not to dismiss Wood's account of what happened simply because he failed the breath test.
"When I consider all the remaining relevant evidence and testimony, I cannot say that I am convinced by Mr. Wood's testimony; far from it, but Mr. Wood does not bear the burden of proving his innocence. He is required only to raise a reasonable doubt, and I find that he has done that."
At the same time, the judge invited the Crown lawyers to appeal the decision if they disagreed with it.