“ ‘ “A trial court has broad discretion in formulating its jury instructions, providing those instructions accurately reflect the law and the facts of the case. Raper v. State, 584 So.2d 544 (Ala.Cr.App.1991). We do not review a jury instruction in isolation, but must consider the instruction as a whole, Stewart v. State, 601 So.2d 491 (Ala.Cr.App.1992), aff'd in relevant part, 659 So.2d 122 (Ala.1993), and we must evaluate instructions like a reasonable juror may have interpreted them.

" ‘ " ‘A trial court has broad discretion in formulating its jury instructions, providing those instructions accurately reflect the law and the facts of the case. Raper v. State, 584 So. 2d 544 (Ala. Cr. App. 1991). We do not review a jury instruction in isolation, but must consider the instruction as a whole, Stewart v. State, 601 So. 2d 491 (Ala. Cr. App. 1992), aff'd in relevant part, 659 So. 2d 122 (Ala. 1993), and we must evaluate instructions like a reasonable juror may have interpreted them.

"A trial court has broad discretion in formulating its jury instructions, providing those instructions accurately reflect the law and the facts of the case. Raper v. State, 584 So.2d 544 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991). We do not review a jury instruction in isolation, but must consider the instruction as a whole, Steward v. State, 601 So.2d 491 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992), aff'd in relevant part, 659 So.2d 122 (Ala. 1993), and we must evaluate instructions like a reasonable juror may have interpreted them.

This list is not meant to be exhaustive, but it indicates the kind of evidence that supports certain elements of criminal charges involving intoxication. See Striplin v. City of Dothan, 607 So.2d 1280 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. Ex parte City of Dothan, 607 So.2d 1283 (Ala. 1992) (evidence held sufficient to support conviction of public intoxication where police officer observed that defendant was unsteady on her feet, that her speech was slurred, and that she was belligerent in her conduct toward the store attendant when asked to leave); Hargrove v. City of Rainbow City, 619 So.2d 944 (Ala.Cr.App. 1993) (police officer testified that he smelled alcohol on the defendant's breath, that the defendant's eyes were glassy, and that his speech was confused); Raper v.State, 584 So.2d 544 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991) (conviction of DUI supported by sufficient evidence where the defendant's eyes were glassy, his speech was slurred, and he had trouble determining where he was when asked by police officer who had known the defendant for 10 years). Since 1909, with one brief exception, it has been the law of this State that one could not sell alcohol to visibly intoxicated persons.

See Thomas, 200 So.3d at 42 (holding that a Uniform Traffic Ticket and Complaint was not defective even though it did not cite a specific section of the Alabama Code that had been violated), see also Whitt v. State, 827 So.2d 869, 877 (Ala.Crim.App.2001) ("'"Where an indictment contains language which conveys the meaning of a statute, see § 15-8-21, Code of Alabama (1975), the violation of a code section may be satisfactorily charged despite the failure to cite the statute."' Raper v. State, 584 So.2d 544, 548 (Ala.Crim.App.1991) (quoting Carroll v. City of Huntsville, 505 So.2d 389, 391 (Ala.Crim.App.1987)).").

"‘A trial court has broad discretion in formulating its jury instructions, providing those instructions accurately reflect the law and the facts of the case. Raper v. State, 584 So. 2d 544 (Ala. Cr[im]. App. 1991). We do not review a jury instruction in isolation, but must consider the instruction as a whole, Stewart v. State, 601 So. 2d 491 (Ala. Cr[im]. App. 1992), aff’d in relevant part, 659 So. 2d 122 (Ala. 1993), and we must evaluate instructions like a reasonable juror may have interpreted them.

" 'A trial court has broad discretion in formulating its jury instructions, providing those instructions accurately reflect the law and the facts of the case. Raper v. State, 584 So.2d 544 (Ala. Cr[im]. App. 1991). We do not review a jury instruction in isolation, but must consider the instruction as a whole, Stewart v. State, 601 So.2d 491 (Ala. Cr[im]. App. 1992), aff'd in relevant part, 659 So.2d 122 (Ala. 1993), and we must evaluate instructions like a reasonable juror may have interpreted them.

"A trial court has broad discretion in formulating its jury instructions, providing those instructions accurately reflect the law and the facts of the case. Raper v. State, 584 So. 2d 544 (Ala. Cr. App. 1991). We do not review a jury instruction in isolation, but must consider the instruction as a whole, Stewart v. State, 601 So. 2d 491 (Ala. Cr. App. 1992), aff'd in relevant part, 659 So. 2d 122 (Ala. 1993), and we must evaluate instructions like a reasonable juror may have interpreted them.

"Whether a trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment was error is reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard of review. See Raper v. State, 584 So.2d 544 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991)." Hunter v. State, 867 So.2d 361, 362 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003). "

" ‘A trial court has broad discretion in formulating its jury instructions, providing those instructions accurately reflect the law and the facts of the case.’ Ingram v. State, 779 So.2d 1225 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999) (citing Raper v. State, 584 So.2d 544 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991) ). " ‘ "In setting out the standard for plain error review of jury instructions, the court in United States v. Chandler, 996 F.2d 1073, 1085, 1097 (11th Cir. 1993), cited Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370, 380 (1990), for the proposition that ‘an error occurs only when there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury applied the instruction in an improper manner.’ Williams v. State, 710 So.2d 1276, 1306 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996), aff'd, 710 So.2d 1350 (Ala. 1997)."