As I read this opinion, I am reminded about the old commercial with the egg in the frying pan that ended “This is your brain on drugs!” as the egg fries in the pan.  And then I fall back to the idea of how often people indicate that they cannot remember an incident because of how much alchohol or drugs they have been using.  As I try and compare the value of the opinion, I am forced to look at the lower court’s ruling and the Supreme Court’s findngs.   While it may seem obvious that drugs may have an affect on users, the lower court seemed to make it clear that this is not a given and that there should be a concerted effort to prove the point with such use as an expert witness.  Here Ricci did not.  The Rhode Island Supreme Court actually found that the lower court’s own instruction adequately addressed any such issue within its jury instruction language.  Furthermore, the Court recited previous rulings that it is well settled that “a trial justice should avoid reciting instructions that might be construed as commentary on the quality or credibility of particular evidence.”  That said, the Rhode Island Supreme Court went on and decided on this and additional issues against defendant Luigi Ricci.  See, State v. Ricci.