In People v. Hering (1999) 20 Cal.4th 440, the court explained that classification of a crime as a general intent crime or a specific intent crime is not always necessary. "Such classification is, however, necessary only when the court must determine whether a defense of voluntary intoxication or mental disease, defect, or disorder is available; whether evidence thereon is admissible; or whether appropriate jury instructions are thereby required. In this case, neither defendant asserts any such claim. Each simply contends that in addition to instructions that tracked the statutory language, the trial court should have included one on specific intent. We are unpersuaded. This case aptly illustrates the general principle that--other than circumstances involving a mental state defense--'the characterization of a crime as one of specific intent or general intent has little meaningful significance in instructing a jury. The critical issue is the accurate description of the state of mind required for the particular crime.' " ( People v. Herring, supra, 20 Cal.4th at pp. 446-447.)