[taking drugs] and can even be intoxicated, but still have the necessary mental faculties to act with a specific intent. A requested jury instruction is applicable if the evidence is sufficient to permit a jury to find its factual predicate. As we said in Dishman v. State: The threshold determination of whether the evidence is sufficient to generate the desired instruction is a question of law for the judge. The task of this Court on review is to determine whether the criminal defendant produced that minimum threshold of evidence necessary to establish a prima facie case that would allow a jury to rationally conclude that the evidence supports the application of the legal theory desired. (Citations omitted.) Dishman v. State, 352 Md. 279, 292-93, 300, 721 A.2d 699, 705, 709 (1998) (<HOLDING>); see also Binnie v. State, 321 Md. 572, 580,
holding that erroneous manslaughter instruction that defendant intentionally caused the death of the victim did not constitute fundamental error certifying question  if a jury returns a verdict finding a defendant guilty of seconddegree murder in a case where the evidence does not support a theory of culpable negligence does a trial court commit fundamental error by giving a flawed manslaughter by act instruction when it also gives an instruction on manslaughter by culpable negligence holding that trial court acted properly in refusing to give jury instruction on fleeting possession theory holding that because the evidence allowed the jury to conclude that petitioner acted with gross negligence and not a specific intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury the trial court erred by refusing the manslaughter instruction holding that the trial court plainly erred in failing to provide a specific unanimity instruction to the jury holding erroneous jury instruction on manslaughter by intentional act not fundamental error where trial court also instructed jury on manslaughter by culpable negligence