Where a defendant convicted of drug and weapons offenses challenged the district court’s refusal to give his theory-of-defense instruction, the court did not err in refusing to give the instruction because it did not correctly state the law, there was only speculative evidence of intoxication and the instructions as a whole adequately stated the law.
Judgment is affirmed.
U.S. v. Garrett (MLW No. 71949/Case No. 17-2302 – 11 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Loken, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri, Ketchmark, J. (Stephen C. Moss, Kansas City, Missouri, argued for appellant) (Jeffrey Q. McCarther, Kansas City, Missouri, argued for appellee).