State v. Hipkins

I

In his first proposition of law, appellant asserts that the trial court committed prejudicial error in refusing to instruct the jury that evidence of appellant’s intoxication was also admissible to establish that appellant did not know he was under detention and to establish that appellant was not reckless in that regard.

A review of the record in this case indicates that the trial judge did instruct the jury in this regard.1 Assuming, ar*82guendo, that the trial court had not so instructed the jury, appellant’s argument would nonetheless fail based on this court’s recent decision in State v.…