(1) The issue of whether the district court erred in denying the directed verdict motion was inadequately briefed and the Court of Appeals decline to thoroughly examine the claim of error.
(2) Trial counsel was not ineffective in (1) failing to object to the admission of evidence under rule 403, (2) failing to object to the prosecutor’s comments regarding Defendant’s t-shirt because counsel could have reasonably determined the prosecutor was acting within the broad latitude allowed for commenting on the evidence, or (3) failing to object to portions of body camera footage because the record demonstrated counsel had a strategic purpose in mind when stipulating to the admission of the evidence.
(3) The district court did not err when it concluded Defendant was not entitled to the requested voluntary intoxication instruction because the evidence did not suggest his intoxication vitiated his intent to fire his gun.