on the defense of voluntary intoxication. An examination of McGehearty reveals that its holding is inapposite to the instant case. The defendant in McGehearty had introduced evidence that he had consumed fifteen bottles of beer and a substantial amount of whisky during the nine hours preceding the robbery. This was decidedly a crucial factor, for this court found that it was “because of the evidence defendant presented on the issue of intoxication [that] * * * the trial justice should have instructed the jury that the state was required to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant was not so intoxicated as to be unable to harbor a specific intention to steal.” (Emphasis added.) State v. McGehearty, 394 A.2d at 1351. See State v. Vanasse, 42 R.I. 278, 281, 107 A. 85, 86 (1919) (<HOLDING>). The importance of a defendant’s initial
holding such intoxication to be voluntary holding intoxication to a degree that made specific intent impossible was a valid defense to a charge of willful premeditated firstdegree murder holding intoxication is only a defense to specific intent crimes and not general intent crimes holding that in order to negate specific intent intoxication must be of such a degree as to completely paralyze the will of the respondent take from him the power to withstand evil impulses and render his mind incapable of forming any sane design holding that the respondent failed to carry his burden of establishing the applicability of the capableofrepetition exception where the respondent disputed only whether the specific facts that were established during the hearing in this specific adjudication were sufficient