268 F.3d 970, 975 (10th Cir.2001), petition for cert filed, (U.S. May 17, 2002) (No. 01-10302). ANALYSIS I. Failure to Instruct on Voluntary and Involuntary Intoxication Jackson argues the trial court denied him due process and his Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights by refusing to instruct the jury, as he requested, on voluntary and involuntary intoxication. He claims the jury instructions did not reflect his intoxication defense, despite his offering ample evidence to support the defense. Jackson fails to cite Supreme Court precedent establishing a constitutional man date for intoxication instructions. Supreme Court precedent instead suggests there is no such mandate. See generally Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37, 39-40, 43, 51, 56, 116 S.Ct. 2013, 135 L.Ed.2d 361 (1996) (<HOLDING>); Taylor v. Withrow, 288 F.3d 846, 851 (6th
holding that a defendants insanity due to voluntary intoxication is not a defense holding montana statute precluding consideration of voluntary intoxication in determining existence of mental state which is element of criminal offense does not violate due process clause holding such intoxication to be voluntary holding that doctrine does not violate due process holding that a mandatory presumption in a jury charge which directed a finding on an element of the criminal offense violated the due process clause