Is unconsciousness a defense to criminal charges?

Defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence that he was conscious. "Unconsciousness, if not induced by voluntary intoxication, is a complete defense to a criminal charge. [Citations.] To constitute a defense, unconsciousness need not rise to the level of coma or inability to walk or perform manual movements; it can exist 'where the subject physically acts but is not, at the time, conscious of acting.' [Citation.]" (People v. Halvorsen (2007) 42 Cal.4th 379, 417.)

"On the other hand, voluntary intoxication, even if it induced unconsciousness, is not a defense to crime as such, though it may be relevant to whether the defendant formed a specific intent necessary for its commission. [Citations.] Voluntary intoxication can prevent formation of any specific intent requisite to the offense at issue, but it can never excuse homicide. Hence, at the time [a] defendant committed his crime[], where voluntary intoxication rendered the defendant unconscious, '"criminal negligence [was] deemed to exist irrespective of unconsciousness,"' and the offense was involuntary manslaughter. [Citation.]" (People v. Boyer (2006) 38 Cal.4th 412, 469, fn. omitted.)

"The prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that [the] defendant was conscious during the commission of the crime." (People v. Cruz (1978)

Page 7