of voluntary intoxication negate the element of specific intent required for capital murder. See Raby v. State, 970 S.W.2d 1, 6 (Tex.Crim.App.1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1003, 119 S.Ct. 515, 142 L.Ed.2d 427 (1998). Although involuntary intoxication may absolve one of criminal culpability, see Torres v. State, 585 S.W.2d 746, 749 (Tex.Crim.App.1979), Texas courts have consistently ruled that alcoholism may not be the basis for an involuntary intoxication defense, see Shurbet v. State, 652 S.W.2d 425, 428 (Tex.App.-Austin 1982, no pet.); Heard v. State, 887 S.W.2d 94, 98 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1994, pet. ref'd) (referring to Shurbet for support); cf. Martinez v. State, No. 04-95-00032-CR, 1996 WL 134969, at *3 (Tex. App.-San Antonio March 27, 1996, no pet.) (unpublished disposition) (<HOLDING>). Thus, Hernandez’ consumption of alcohol on
holding that defendant was not entitled to entrapment instruction when there was insufficient evidence to support such an instruction holding that evidence of an addiction does not warrant an instruction on involuntary intoxication holding that a party waived an allegation that an instruction was erroneous where the party failed to object at trial to the instruction on those grounds holding that when no objection was made to jury instruction evidence to support finding based on instruction should be assessed in light of the instruction given holding that the evidence did not generate an intoxication instruction because among other things a witness testified that you could  understand what the defendant was talking about