Does the prohibition on admitting evidence of voluntary intoxication for a charge of implied malice murder violate equal protection principles?

Even if defendants convicted of express-malice murder and implied-malice murder are similarly situated, the prohibition on admitting evidence of voluntary intoxication for a charge of implied malice murder does not violate equal protection principles. People v. Timms, supra, 151 Cal.App.4th 1292 rejected the defendant's contention that former section 22 violates one's federal constitutional equal protection rights. The court held that former section 22 does not offend equal protection principles because there is a rational basis for not recognizing voluntary intoxication as a defense in an implied malice case, but allowing it as a defense for express malice. The court stated,

Page 8