Does the assertion of unconsciousness due to intoxication constitute an absolute defense to a general intent crime?

11 We caution that we deal here only with the assertion of unconsciousness due to voluntary intoxication as an absolute defense to a general intent crime. Had the victim in this case died, and had defendant been charged with murder, defendant would have been entitled to instructions based on his voluntary intoxication as a partial defense precluding specific intent, such as premeditation, deliberation, or malice. ( 22, subd. (b).) Indeed, defendant was entitled to such instructions as a defense to the section 12022.7 enhancement allegation for great bodily injury, because the enhancement requires specific intent. (See People v. Ramos (1982) 30 Cal.3d 553, 583, 180 Cal.Rptr. 266, 639 P.2d 908.) Since in this case the enhancement was found not true (see fn. 2, ante ), we need not dwell further on the matter.