With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". [taking drugs] and can even be intoxicated, but still have the necessary mental faculties to act with a specific intent. A requested jury instruction is applicable if the evidence is sufficient to permit a jury to find its factual predicate. As we said in Dishman v. State: The threshold determination of whether the evidence is sufficient to generate the desired instruction is a question of law for the judge. The task of this Court on review is to determine whether the criminal defendant produced that minimum threshold of evidence necessary to establish a prima facie case that would allow a jury to rationally conclude that the evidence supports the application of the legal theory desired. (Citations omitted.) Dishman v. State, 352 Md. 279, 292-93, 300, 721 A.2d 699, 705, 709 (1998) (<HOLDING>); see also Binnie v. State, 321 Md. 572, 580,

A: holding that the trial court plainly erred in failing to provide a specific unanimity instruction to the jury
B: holding that trial court acted properly in refusing to give jury instruction on fleeting possession theory
C: holding that because the evidence allowed the jury to conclude that petitioner acted with gross negligence and not a specific intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury the trial court erred by refusing the manslaughter instruction
D: holding that erroneous manslaughter instruction that defendant intentionally caused the death of the victim did not constitute fundamental error certifying question  if a jury returns a verdict finding a defendant guilty of seconddegree murder in a case where the evidence does not support a theory of culpable negligence does a trial court commit fundamental error by giving a flawed manslaughter by act instruction when it also gives an instruction on manslaughter by culpable negligence
C.