With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the afternoon “chopping wood and dismantling a fireplace” was inconsistent with the intoxication defense). Petitioner’s ability to speak intelligibly while allegedly intoxicated also contradicts his intoxication theory. Petitioner’s speech, even after he had consumed all the alcohol that he claims to have consumed, was understandable to both Eggleston and Detective Guevara, as Eggleston was able to repeat Petitioner’s words verbatim at trial, and Guevara testified that Petitioner had explained the details of being robbed by one male and one female on “the footbridge that goes across Little Patuxent Parkway from the waterfront towards the mall.” Such clear, detailed speech is inconsistent with the level of intoxication required to negate a specific intent. See Netter, 79 So.3d at 483 (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, Petitioner’s decision to wear a

A: holding that evidence of an addiction does not warrant an instruction on involuntary intoxication
B: 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
C: holding that in a criminal trial the trial court must correct or amend an improper instruction if the proper instruction is necessary for the jury to understand the case
D: holding that failure to request jury instruction about manner in which evidence was obtained was not error and thus did not constitute ineffective assistance because defendant was not entitled to instruction
B.