Can a jury consider evidence of voluntary intoxication in the context of a defense of incomplete self defense?

an intent to kill or the defendant acted with deliberation and premeditation or the defendant acted with conscious disregard for human life with knowledge that his conduct was life-endangering. [] You may not consider evidence of voluntary intoxication for any other purpose." (Italics added.) According to appellant, even if this instruction is correct in the abstract, the instruction was incorrect in this case because it precluded the jury from considering evidence of his voluntary intoxication for purposes of his defense of incomplete self defense. (See 29.4, subd. (b) ["Evidence of voluntary intoxication is admissible solely on the issue of whether or not the defendant actually formed a required specific intent, or, when charged with murder, whether the defendant premeditated, deliberated, or harbored express malice aforethought"]; People v. Saille (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1103, 1119 ["Intoxication is now relevant only to the extent that it bears on the question of whether the defendant actually had the requisite specific mental state"].)⁴

Appellant did not request that the jury be instructed at trial regarding its consideration of evidence of his voluntary intoxication on the issue of his claim of imperfect self defense. However, appellant insists on appeal the trial court nonetheless had a sua sponte duty to instruct jurors on voluntary intoxication as it related to his defense. Appellant reasons that, while there is generally no sua sponte duty to instruct on voluntary intoxication (People v. Castillo (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1009, 1014 ["instruction relating intoxication to any mental state is . . . 'more like the "pinpoint" instructions' that

Page 11