What is the legal adequacy of a jury's instruction in a murder case?

The legal adequacy of an instruction is reviewed independently. (See People v. Alvarez, supra, 14 Cal.4th 155, 217-218, 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 385, 926 P.2d 365.)

As stated, the trial court instructed the jury that murder required a certain mental state that was included in its definition. The jury was advised that it could consider evidence of voluntary intoxication in determining whether defendant had such mental state and could also consider evidence of mental disease, defect, or disorder in determining whether or not the defendant actually formed that mental state. The court instructed the jury that an element of murder by torture was "willful, deliberate, and premeditated intent to inflict extreme and prolonged pain upon a living human being for the purpose of revenge, extortion, persuasion, or for any sadistic purpose." Viewing the instructions as a whole, we conclude the jury was adequately instructed that intoxication and mental disease were relevant to the requisite mental state for murder by torture, that is, the intent to inflict extreme pain. (See, e.g., People v. Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 950, 1021, 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 689, 857 P.2d 1099.)