What is the test for imposing a no-alcohol condition on a defendant who has a history of alcohol abuse?

age. The only issue, therefore, is whether the no-alcohol condition forbids conduct that is not reasonably related to future criminality. The analysis is highly fact-specific. (People v. Lindsay (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1642, 1644.)

Some courts have found alcohol-related conditions reasonable where the record reveals a factual basis to find that the defendant abused alcohol. For example, in People v. Lindsay, supra, the defendant had an " 'alcohol problem' " as well as an " 'addictive personality,' " and his crime involved selling drugs to support his addiction. (10 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1644-1645.) The addiction to drugs, combined with the defendant's alcohol problem, created a nexus between the potentially impaired judgment resulting from alcohol use and an increase in the potential for a drug abuse relapse in the future. (Id. at p. 1645.) The alcohol use prohibition was therefore reasonably related to future criminality. Similarly, in People v. Balestra (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 57, the defendant smelled of alcohol at the time she committed elder abuse on her mother. The trial court commented at the plea hearing that the defendant " 'need[ed] treatment for what everybody appears to agree is an alcohol problem . . . .' " (Id. at p. 62.)

Other courts have imposed a no-alcohol condition even when the defendant had no history of alcohol abuse. In People v. Smith (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 1032, the court concluded that a no-alcohol condition was reasonably related to the defendant's conviction for PCP possession and to his future criminality, because he had an "extensive involvement with drugs," was "emotionally unstable," and had "a poorly integrated personality." (Id. at pp. 1034-1035.) "Given the nexus between drug use and alcohol consumption," the court held, "we find no abuse of discretion in the imposition of the condition of probation relating to alcohol usage." (Id. at p. 1035.)