Does a defendant have a right to an instruction that pinpoints the defense of voluntary manslaughter?

In Roldan, the court held while it is true that a defendant has a right to an instruction that pinpoints the theory of the defense, the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct on voluntary manslaughter because of defendant's intoxication. (People v. Roldan, supra, 35 Cal.4th at pp. 715-716.) The instruction was not warranted even though the evidence showed that the defendant was a habitual drug user, felt "'woozy'" shortly before the crime, was "on 'cloud nine'" after the crime, and there was evidence that his codefendant was heavily intoxicated at the time of the crimes. (Id. at p. 716.) There was absolutely no evidence the defendant was so intoxicated that he was unable to form the basic mental intent to commit a robbery or was rendered unconscious. (Id. at p. 717.)