Is there any case law that supports the argument that the rape of an intoxicated person is a specific intent crime?

Thus, while evidence of voluntary intoxication is inadmissible to negate the existence of general criminal intent, such evidence is admissible to negate the existence of specific intent. (People v. Atkins (2001) 25 Cal.4th 76, 80-81.) "'When the definition of a crime consists of only the description of a particular act, without reference to intent to do a further act or achieve a future consequence, we ask whether the defendant intended to do the proscribed act. This intention is deemed to be a general criminal intent. When the definition refers to defendant's intent to do some further act or achieve some additional consequence, the crime is deemed to be one of specific intent.' [Citation.] General criminal intent thus requires no further mental state beyond willing commission of the act proscribed by law." (People v. Sargent (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1206, 1215.)

Rape of all forms is a general intent crime because it requires only the perpetrator's criminal intent to commit sexual intercourse without the victim's consent. (People v. Linwood (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 59, 70.) The knowledge requirement under Penal Code section 261, subdivision (a)(3) for rape of an intoxicated person does not refer to a defendant's intent to do an act or achieve a consequence in addition to the general intent to commit sexual intercourse without the victim's consent. "Rape of an intoxicated person ([Pen. Code,] 261, subd. (a)(3)) is a general intent crime. [Citation.]

Page 31

This is so even though there is an additional knowledge requirementthat 'the accused either must have known or reasonably should have known of the victim's particular condition that precluded consent.' [Citations.] In other words, the general intent and knowledge requirements are separate elements, and the latter does not transform rape of an intoxicated person into a specific intent crime." (People v. Braslaw (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1239, 1248-1249.)