Pen. Code §§ 22, 189). This Court had previously held that proof of intoxication (and, inferentially, any mental defect) could negate malice, even in the case of a premeditated killing, People v. Conley, 64 Cal. 2d 310 (1966), but the defense was eliminated by amendments to the definition of "malice," Cal. Penal Code § 188; see also People v. Saille, 54 Cal. 3d 1103 304 A172379797.1 (1991) (explaining that changes in section 188 repudiated Conley). Similarly, this Court had earlier held that, even in the case of a planned killing, a defendant could negate "premeditation and deliberation" by raising a doubt as to whether the defendant had the capacity to "maturely and meaningfully reflect upon. . . his contemplated act."