106 S.Ct. 2639, 91 L.Ed.2d 397 (1986)). Minarik argues that he is actually innocent because he was involuntarily intoxicated when he committed the crime. Our task is therefore to look to all of the information currently available concerning a potential “defense of involuntary intoxication,” including that developed in the proceedings since Minarik’s sentencing, to determine whether, more likely than not, no reasonable juror exposed to that information would have convicted him. It is not clear to us that Pennsylvania law would characterize intoxication produced by the voluntary consumption of a prescription drug and alcohol as “involuntary” even if that consumption was without knowledge of a synergistic effect. See Commonwealth v. Todaro, 301 Pa.Super. 1, 446 A.2d 1305 (Pa.Super.1982) (<HOLDING>). Nothing in our analysis turns on this point,
holding that voluntary intoxication is a defense to a charge of assault and battery with intent to gratify sexual desires holding that a defendants insanity due to voluntary intoxication is not a defense holding such intoxication to be voluntary 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 that an attorney was ineffective for failing to pursue a voluntary intoxication defense because he did not understand the elements