964 P.2d at 891-92, clarified Oklahoma law concerning presentation of an intoxication defense. That court noted that the trial judge first had a duty to decide whether the defense was adequately raised such that it warranted instruction. Id. at 891. “When sufficient, prima facia evidence is presented which meets the legal criteria for the defense of voluntary intoxication, or any other defense, an instruction should be given.” Id. at 892. “A defense of voluntary intoxication requires that a defendant, first, be intoxicated and, second, be so utterly intoxicated, that his mental powers are overcome, rendering it impossible for a defendant to form the specific criminal intent or special mental element of the crime.” Id.; see also Frederick v. State, 37 P.3d 908, 942 (Okla.Crim.App. 2001) (<HOLDING>); Bland, 4 P.3d at 718 (upholding trial court’s
holding intoxication to a degree that made specific intent impossible was a valid defense to a charge of willful premeditated firstdegree murder holding mere consumption of alcohol and marijuana is insufficient to raise voluntary intoxication defense without showing consumption prevented defendant from forming premeditated intent holding such intoxication to be voluntary holding that a defendants insanity due to voluntary intoxication is not a defense 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