Can a jury consider whether a defendant has been drinking alcohol at the time of the crime?

intoxication on whether one crime was a natural and probable consequence of the other, because such instruction would not be relevant. (Mendoza, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 1134, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 428, 959 P.2d 735.) Because the instruction was garbled, it failed in that regard. But it did not "have the effect of excluding defense evidence," and was not error. (Ibid. ; see People v. Letner and Tobin (2010) 50 Cal.4th 99, 187, 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 746, 235 P.3d 62 [even if instructions on voluntary intoxication were inadequate, error harmless where, among other things, prosecutor did not argue that jury could not consider voluntary intoxication and defendants did not "actually argue[ ] a voluntary intoxication defense to the jury"].)