recently, in Coken v. State, 714 N.E.2d 1168, 1177 (Ind.Ct.App1999), trams. denied, another panel of this Court upheld the following "intent to kill" instruction: The intent to kill may be inferred from the use of a deadly weapon used in a manner reasonably calculated to cause death and from the nature, duration, or « brutality of the attack. An intention to kill may also be found from acts, declarations, and conduct of the defendants at or just immediately before the commission of the offense, and from noting the part of the body on which the wound was inflicted. Id. The Cohen court held that, because the jury instruction at issue was a correct statement of the law, the trial court did not err by giving such instruction. See id.; see also Mitchell v. State, 726 N.E.2d 1228 (Ind.2000) (<HOLDING>), reh'g denied, overruled on other grounds by
holding that intent may be inferred from the severity duration or brutality of the attack holding intent may be inferred from all facts and circumstances holding that employers intent may be inferred through circumstantial evidence holding specific intent to harm may be inferred from the circumstances and that finding is a matter for the jury holding intent may be inferred from large amount of marijuana