What is the tactical explanation for defense counsel's failure to request a voluntary intoxication instruction?

Having reviewed the record, we conclude a plausible tactical explanation exists for defense counsel's failure to request a voluntary intoxication instruction, and thus that defendant's ineffective assistance claim must fail. The defense at trial was that defendant had been misidentified as the perpetrator of the crimes, not that he was too intoxicated to form the requisite intent to commit the crimes. As such, defense counsel may have reasonably concluded that, as a tactical matter, it was preferable not to call attention to defendant's alcohol consumption or intoxication, but rather to focus on discrepancies in the witnesses' testimony identifying him as the perpetrator of the crimes, or factors impacting their capacity to correctly identify the knife-wielding perpetrator. While defendant suggests defense counsel should have done both - focused on his intoxication and misidentification - it is not our role on appeal to second guess an attorney's decision regarding matters of trial strategy. And finally, given the by-all-means comprehensive set of instructions read to the jury regarding the prosecution's burden to prove each element of each crime beyond a reasonable doubt - including the element of intent - there is no basis for finding prejudice on this record even if we could find deficient performance by counsel (which we cannot). Accordingly, because defendant cannot prove that defense counsel's deficient performance " 'so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result,' " his second challenge based upon ineffectiveness of counsel likewise fails. (People v. Kipp, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 366.)

Page 12