With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". on the defense of voluntary intoxication. An examination of McGehearty reveals that its holding is inapposite to the instant case. The defendant in McGehearty had introduced evidence that he had consumed fifteen bottles of beer and a substantial amount of whisky during the nine hours preceding the robbery. This was decidedly a crucial factor, for this court found that it was “because of the evidence defendant presented on the issue of intoxication [that] * * * the trial justice should have instructed the jury that the state was required to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant was not so intoxicated as to be unable to harbor a specific intention to steal.” (Emphasis added.) State v. McGehearty, 394 A.2d at 1351. See State v. Vanasse, 42 R.I. 278, 281, 107 A. 85, 86 (1919) (<HOLDING>). The importance of a defendant’s initial

A: holding that in order to negate specific intent intoxication must be of such a degree as to completely paralyze the will of the respondent take from him the power to withstand evil impulses and render his mind incapable of forming any sane design
B: holding intoxication is only a defense to specific intent crimes and not general intent crimes
C: holding intoxication to a degree that made specific intent impossible was a valid defense to a charge of willful premeditated firstdegree murder
D: holding such intoxication to be voluntary
A.