In People v. Hood (1969) 1 Cal.3d 444, a defendant specifically had been charged with the crime of assault with a deadly weapon on a peace officer. Without the necessity at that time of reaching the question of whether assault constituted a specific intent crime, the Supreme Court furnished guidance on retrial of the charge that a person who voluntarily becomes drunk should not escape the consequences of criminal responsibility for "assault with a deadly weapon on a peace officer or any of the lesser assaults included therein." ( Hood, supra, 1 Cal.3d at pp. 458-459.) Such guidance was an attempt to reconcile the competing theories that, on the one hand, the moral culpability of a drunken criminal is often less than a sober one and, on the other hand, a person who voluntarily becomes drunk and commits a crime in such state should not escape its consequences. ( Id., at p. 455.) The court, however, did not mention the additional mental element required for assault on a peace officer which distinguishes it from the lesser included assaults, i.e., that a defendant "knows or reasonably should know" that his victim is a peace officer engaged in the performance of his duties.