Does a defendant have to prove he was in a state of intoxication to be found guilty of a charge of larceny?

Here defendant has not shown prejudice. To prevail on his defense defendant had to show more than mere proof of intoxication; he had to prove he did not have the intent to commit larceny. ( 459; People v. Teamer (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1454, 1457-1458.) "No act committed by a person while in a state of voluntary intoxication is less criminal by reason of his or her having been in that condition. Evidence of voluntary intoxication shall not be admitted to negate the capacity to form any mental states for the crimes charged . . . [] . . . [but] is admissible solely on the issue of whether or not the defendant actually formed a required specific intent . . . ." ( 22, subds. (a), (b).)