With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (7th Cir.1984), overruled in part on other grounds, United States v. Payne, 741 F.2d 887, 891 n. 4 (7th Cir.1984). Failure to investigate, standing alone, might constitute ineffective assistance of counsel if it were prejudicial and did not conform to minimum professional standards. Cf. Crisp v. Duckworth, 743 F.2d 580, 583, 587 (7th Cir.1984), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 1221, 84 L.Ed.2d 361 (1985). 4 . At the time of petitioner’s trial, the applicable statute provided, “Voluntary intoxication is a defense only to the extent that it negates specific intent.” Ind.Code Ann. § 35-41-3-5(b) (West 1978). For a historical review of specific intent and the defense of voluntary intoxication under Indiana Law, see Carter v. State, — Ind.App. -, -, 408 N.E.2d 790, 794-804 (2d Dist. 1980) (<HOLDING>). Following the decision in Williams v. State,

A: holding evidence of intent to arouse or gratify sexual desire is relevant where it is an element of the crime charged
B: holding that voluntary intoxication is a defense to a charge of assault and battery with intent to gratify sexual desires
C: holding that a defendants insanity due to voluntary intoxication is not a defense
D: holding such intoxication to be voluntary
B.