In what circumstances have courts allowed lay opinion testimony as to whether a defendant was intoxicated?

In People v. Ravey (1954) 122 Cal.App.2d 699, 703, 265 P.2d 154, the court held admissible lay opinion testimony as to whether the defendant was intoxicated, reasoning that "the question of whether a person was intoxicated is not necessarily a matter of expert testimony, as any layman can give his opinion based upon his own observation." (Italics added.) And in People v. Williams (1988) 44 Cal.3d 883, 914, 245 Cal.Rptr. 336, 751 P.2d 395, the defendant complained that a detective and a jailer in whose custody he had spent time gave nonexpert testimony "that in their opinion defendant was not 'strung out' [i.e., intoxicated by drugs] when they observed him." In a well-considered dictum we found no reason to distinguish lay opinion on drug-induced intoxication from the settled rule allowing such opinion on alcohol-induced intoxication. (Id. at pp. 914-915, 245 Cal.Rptr. 336, 751 P.2d 395.)