context: Intoxication is one factor to be considered by the trial court in determining vol-untariness and validity of a waiver of Miranda rights. However, intoxication alone does not invalidate a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.parenthetical: statements were not inadmissible merely because defendant was intoxicated when he made them
citation_a.sentence: Cf. Ballay v. People, 160 Colo. 309, 419 P.2d 446 (1966)(statements were not inadmissible merely because defendant was intoxicated when he made them).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.parenthetical: finding that intoxicated defendant was properly advised of his rights and made statements voluntarily
citation_b.sentence: See People v. Veloz, 946 P.2d 525 (Colo.App.1997)(finding that intoxicated defendant was properly advised of his rights and made statements voluntarily); State v. Trihou, 488 A.2d 472 (Me.1985)(al-though defendant had been drinking and smoking marijuana on day of incident, he was not intoxicated and was able to understand and voluntarily to waive his rights); State v. Finson, 447 A.2d 788 (Me.1982)(even a person heavily intoxicated is not necessarily incapable of waiving constitutional rights).