caused him to forget certain things. Thus, not only is there insufficient evidence, standing alone, to support his intoxication theory, but there is also ample evidence, uncontradicted at trial, that is inconsistent with the intoxication defense. Even taking for granted everything Petitioner claims about his drunken state — that he behaved illogically, was unable to recall some of his behavior, was “about to pass out” after being stabbed, and had a blood alcohol content of .157, twice the legal driving limit — we are left with insufficient evidence to “rebut the presumption that a man intends the natural consequence of his act.” See Hook, 315 Md. at 31 n. 9, 553 A.2d at 236 n. 9; Davis, 612 N.E.2d at 345 (refusing to instruct on intoxication even though the defendant had a 292 (1996) (<HOLDING>). Testimony on Witness Certainty The Court of
holding that the trial court must give due consideration to the applicable law and facts holding that the requested instruction was not required under rule 4325c because even assuming that the requested instruction was a correct statement of law the trial judge exercised his discretion properly holding that the requested instruction did not state the applicable law and the trial court was not required to grant it citing rule 4  325c holding that issue of inadequate jury instruction was waived because the instruction given was the one expressly requested by defense counsel holding that the defendant could not appeal a jury instruction where he did not object to the challenged instruction but in fact requested it and stated he was satisfied with it