insufficient to constitute “some ev 343, 345 (1992) (defendant’s ability to be “properly oriented regarding his location” and “fully aware of the facts and circumstances occurring around him” was inconsistent with the intoxication defense); State v. Netter, 79 So.3d 478, 483 (La.Ct.App.2011) (testimony that the defendant “was not stumbling or staggering” was inconsistent with the intoxication defense); State v. Williamson, 668 S.W.2d 597, 600 (Mo.Ct.App.1984) (defendant’s ability to s ndana over his face and wrap a shirt around the weapon that he used to stab Eggleston demonstrates a significant amount of design in planning the crime, which is inconsistent with the assertion that he was unable to form any specific intent that night. See Terry v. State, 465 N.E.2d 1085, 1088 (Ind.1984) (<HOLDING>); see also Shell, 307 Md. at 62, 512 A.2d at
holding that the defendants ability to give directions and make decisions on a course of action for himself was inconsistent with the intoxication defense holding that defense counsels failure to present voluntary intoxication as a defense in a capitalmurder prosecution was not beyond the range of reasonable professional judgment and thus did not amount to ineffective assistance in view of inconsistency of intoxication defense with deliberateness of the defendants actions during the shootings holding that under florida precedent trial court erred in excluding expert testimony on intoxication as voluntary intoxication was a valid defense to a specific intent crime and expert testimony is relevant to a disputed voluntary intoxication defense holding such intoxication to be voluntary holding that a defendants insanity due to voluntary intoxication is not a defense