With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". {22} A “specific-intent crime” is defined as one for which a statute expressly requires proof of “ ‘intent to do a further act or achieve a further consequence.’ ” State v. Bender, 91 N.M. 670, 671, 579 P.2d 796, 797 (1978) (quoting People v. Hood, 1 Cal.3d 444, 82 Cal.Rptr. 618, 626, 462 P.2d 370, 378 (1969)). A general intent crime, however, requires only a “conscious wrongdoing,” or “the purposeful doing of an act that the law declares to be a crime.” Ibn Omar-Muhammad, 102 N.M. at 278, 694 P.2d at 926. New Mexico courts have long followed the same common law specific-general intent approach, allowing voluntary intoxication as a consideration only for specific-intent crimes, including premeditated first-degree murder. See, e.g., State v. Campos, 122 N.M. 148, 921 P.2d 1266 (1996) (<HOLDING>); State v. Tapia, 81 N.M. 274, 275-76, 466 P.2d

A: holding intoxication is only a defense to specific intent crimes and not general intent crimes
B: holding that diminished capacity is a defense only to specific intent crimes
C: holding that the government may not be permitted to introduce other crimes evidence in its case in chief to prove intent unless the defense disputes intent during opening statements
D: holding that under the crimes code conspiracy and the completed substantive offense are separate crimes
A.