intoxicated to the point of losing his or her faculties or sensibilities. Commonwealth v. Reiff, 489 Pa. 12, 413 A.2d 672, 674 (1980). Evidence that the accused ingested alcohol or other intoxicating drug — without more— does not warrant a voluntary intoxication instruction. Id. In Reiff, the evidence showed that the appellant had consumed approximately two and one-half quarts of beer during the several hours before he fatally shot a man, but there was no evidence that the appellant exhibited any signs of intoxication or unusual behavior. Id. at 673. Accordingly, we held that the trial court did not err in refusing to give a jury instruction as to diminished capacity due to voluntary intoxication. Id. at 674; see also Commonwealth v. Marinetti, 547 Pa. 294, 690 A.2d 203, 220-21 (1997) (<HOLDING>). Here, Appellant rests his argument as to the
holding that the trial court properly failed to instruct the jury on voluntary intoxication and manslaughter where there was no evidence that the appellant was intoxicated at the time of the offense although there was evidence that the appellant had been drinking beer on the day of the offense where there was no evidence concerning the quantity of beer he had consumed holding that appellant had standing to appeal because it was bound by the judgment even though it did not meet the second requirement holding that trial court did not err in refusing to give charge because plaintiff failed to demonstrate that his requested charge was tailored to the evidence holding that the trial court did not err by refusing to give a voluntary intoxication charge because even though there was testimony that the appellant had consumed some alcohol prior to the killing there was no evidence that the appellant had been overwhelmed or overpowered by alcohol holding that the trial court committed no error in sustaining objection to plaintiffs testimony that the water had been there for some time because the plaintiff had no personal knowledge of how long the puddle had been there