What is the test for evidence of voluntary intoxication in a murder case?

Instances in which there is no conceivable tactical purpose for counsel's actions are rare. (People v. Lopez (2008) 42 Cal.4th 960, 972.) "The Sixth Amendment guarantees reasonable competence, not perfect advocacy judged with the benefit of hindsight. [Citations.]" (Yarborough v. Gentry (2003) 540 U.S. 1, 8.)¹²

Page 16

"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." ( 29.4, subd. (b).) Because intoxication is not a defense to a crime, a trial court has no sua sponte duty to instruct thereon. A defendant may request a pinpoint instruction on the subject, however. (People v. Saille (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1103, 1120; see 29.4, subd. (a).)