Per Curiam.
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.
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
