Can a defendant seek to have the jury consider his mental disorders in combination with his intoxication when assessing his mental state at the time of the crime?

Defendant contends his trial counsel was ineffective in not requesting an instruction specifically advising the jury that it could consider his mental disorders in combination with his intoxication when assessing his mental state at the time of the offense. The jury was given one instruction permitting it to consider evidence of mental disease, defect, or disorder in determining whether defendant actually formed the requisite mental states, and another instruction allowing it to consider evidence of intoxication in determining whether defendant possessed such mental states. ¹⁵ Defendant contends that, without an additional instruction "harmonizing" these two [20 Cal.4th 986] instructions, the jurors were likely to believe they could not consider combined evidence of a mental disorder and intoxication in determining whether defendant harbored the mental states required to convict him. Defendant observes that he presented expert testimony that the combined effect of his mental disorders and intoxication at the time of the crime prevented him from actually forming the mental states required for the charged offenses, and that trial counsel had no reasonable tactical basis for failing to request an additional pinpoint instruction elaborating upon this theory of his defense. (See People v. Saille, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 1120, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 364, 820 P.2d 588 [defendant may seek a pinpoint instruction that relates the evidence of intoxication to an element of a crime, such as premeditation and deliberation].)