Mark is on trial for double homicide, committed with the specific intent to kill. He maintains that extreme intoxication rendered him physically incapable of committing the murders and also accounted for his inability to recall the events on the night in question. The jury was instructed that the intoxicated condition was not a legitimate factor in considering the existence of the specific intent to kill as an element of the offenses charged. Answer the following questions:
a. Assuming the defendant is being tried in a common law state, can the defendant’s voluntary intoxication provide either an excuse or a justification for his crimes?
b. Can the defendant even present such evidence to a jury?
c. Does the due process clause give the defendant the right to present and have the jury consider all relevant elements to rebut the state’s evidence?