This may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, if it does, I guess the most relevant jurisdiction I'd be interested in would be Indiana in the US.
If a defendant is arguing "mistake of fact," but the reason they made the mistake was, they were intoxicated, does that weaken their defense? Or even make it completely void?
If the defendant doesn't agree that intoxication was the reason for the mistake, can the prosecution still weaken the defense by putting forth an argument that intoxication was the reason for the mistake?
If this is too abstract, you can imagine a case in which a defendent took a laptop from a table in a restaurant, which he believed was his laptop resting on the table he'd been sitting at, when in fact it was someone else's laptop at someone else's table. Also, he was intoxicated at the time. He tosses the laptop into his car, and walks away to another location, where he is then arrested for theft and public intoxication. This is all made up, I'm just trying to illustrate what kind of case I have in mind.