Does the garbled last sentence of the jury instruction on intoxication preclude the jury from considering relevant intoxication evidence?

As to the garbled last sentence of the jury instruction on intoxication, any error was harmless. It did not preclude the jury from considering relevant intoxication evidence. It was an attempt to instruct the jurors that they couldn't consider 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

[189 Cal.Rptr.3d 444]