With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that, without the statements, Appellant would have still been found intoxicated while driving. Even if we agreed with Appellant that these six statements constitute KRE 404(b) evidence, the admission of these statements does not rise to the level of “palpable error” and no manifest injustice occurred. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, the convictions and sentences imposed by the Pulaski Circuit Court in this case are affirmed. LAMBERT, C.J.; GRAVES, KELLER, and WINTERSHEIMER, JJ., concur. JOHNSTONE, J., dissents by separate opinion in which COOPER and SCOTT, JJ., join. 1 . Sergeant Cross testified at trial that he saw an open can of beer at Appellant’s feet and there was a partial 12-pack of beer at his feet as well. 2 . Walden v. Commonwealth, Ky., 805 S.W.2d 102, 105 (1991) (<HOLDING>), (overruled on other grounds by Commonwealth

A: holding such intoxication to be voluntary
B: holding the evidence sufficient to permit the jury to infer the victim escaped from the defendant at a convenience store as opposed to being released in a safe place
C: recognizing that a jury is permitted to infer an intent to deceive from circumstantial evidence
D: holding that the extreme nature of the intoxication was sufficient evidence from which a jury could infer wantonness so extreme as to manifest extreme indifference to human life
D.