Generally, where there is evidence of intoxication and the charged offense involves specific intent, such as capital murder, the trial court should instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of manslaughter. See Pilley v. State, 930 So.2d 550, 562 (Ala.Crim.App. 2005). "'A charge on intoxication should be given if "'there is an evidentiary foundation in the record sufficient for the jury to entertain a reasonable doubt'" in the element of intent.
Maples v. State, 758 So. 2d [1] at 23 [(Ala. Crim. App. 1999)]." Pilley v. State, 930 So. 2d 550, 562 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005).
"Generally, where there is evidence of intoxication and the charged offense involves specific intent, such as capital murder, the trial court should instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of manslaughter. See Pilley v. State, 930 So. 2d 550, 562 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005)."'"A charge on intoxication should be given if '"there is an evidentiary foundation in the record sufficient for the jury to entertain a reasonable doubt"' in the element of intent.
“Generally, where there is evidence of intoxication and the charged offense involves specific intent, such as capital murder, the trial court should instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of manslaughter. See Pilley v. State, 930 So.2d 550, 562 (Ala.Crim.App.2005).“ ‘ “A charge on intoxication should be given if ‘ “there is an evidentiary foundation in the record sufficient for the jury to entertain a reasonable doubt” ’ in the element of intent.
Section 13A–2–2, Ala.Code 1975, provides, in relevant part: "A person who creates a risk but is unaware thereof solely by reason of voluntary intoxication, as defined in subdivision (e)(2) of Section 13A–3–2, acts recklessly with respect thereto."In Pilley v. State, 930 So.2d 550 (Ala.Crim.App.2005), this Court stated:" ‘A charge on intoxication should be given if " ‘there is an evidentiary foundation in the record sufficient for the jury to entertain a reasonable doubt’ " in the element of intent.
' “Pilley v. State, 930 So.2d 550, 561–62 (Ala.Crim.App.2005).” “However, the court should charge on voluntary intoxication only when there is a sufficient evidentiary foundation in the record for a jury to entertain a reasonable doubt as to the element of intent. Ex parte McWhorter, 781 So.2d 330, 342 (Ala.2000).
Maples v. State, 758 So.2d at 23.”Pilley v. State, 930 So.2d 550, 562 (Ala.Crim.App.2005).
" "Pilley v. State, 930 So. 2d 550, 561-62 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005)." "However, the court should charge on voluntary intoxication only when there is a sufficient evidentiary foundation in the record for a jury to entertain a reasonable doubt as to the element of intent. Ex parte McWhorter, 781 So. 2d 330, 342 (Ala. 2000).
" Pilley v. State, 930 So. 2d 550, 562 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005).
In a case presenting identical circumstances, we were able to review the sentencing proceedings without remanding for a correction of the sentence order. Pilley v. State, 930 So.2d 550 (Ala.Crim.App. 2005). We stated: