Does section 29 of the Mental Health Act require an expert to determine whether a defendant had the mental state required for an attempted murder?

To conclude otherwise would render the limits imposed by section 29 meaningless. (Cf. People v. Bordelon (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1311, 1327, 77 Cal.Rptr.3d 14 ( Bordelon ) [ section 29 prohibits expert being asked hypothetical questions that are the "functional equivalent" of asking whether the defendant had a particular intent]; Czahara , supra , 203 Cal.App.3d at p. 1477, 250 Cal.Rptr. 836 ["Czahara concedes [his expert] could not state an opinion that Czahara did not have the mental state required for attempted murder. But taken together, the two opinions offered from [the expert] ... completely negate malice aforethought"].)