With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". court by offer or was apparent from the context within which questions were asked.” Given defense counsel's oral remarles that the expert testimony was offered to show that Weaver did not know what he was doing at the time of commission of the offense and the filing of Dr. Fabian’s report stating that he offered an opinion concerning KRS 501.080 and a voluntary intoxication defense, this issue was properly preserved under the current version of KRE 103. (The trial took place in 2008, one year after the current version of KRE 103 became effective.) In contrast to earlier versions of KRE 103, the current version does not require the presentation of avowal testimony to preserve the issue of a trial court's exclusion of testimony. 13 .See Burnham v. State, 497 So.2d 904, 905 (Fla.App.1986) (<HOLDING>). Although we have held in a collateral appeal

A: holding that defense counsels failure to present voluntary intoxication as a defense in a capitalmurder prosecution was not beyond the range of reasonable professional judgment and thus did not amount to ineffective assistance in view of inconsistency of intoxication defense with deliberateness of the defendants actions during the shootings
B: holding that a defendants insanity due to voluntary intoxication is not a defense
C: holding that under florida precedent trial court erred in excluding expert testimony on intoxication as voluntary intoxication was a valid defense to a specific intent crime and expert testimony is relevant to a disputed voluntary intoxication defense
D: holding that an attorney was ineffective for failing to pursue a voluntary intoxication defense because he did not understand the elements
C.