Burnim appeals from his conviction for unarmed bank robbery, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a). He was found guilty after a court trial at which the only contested issue was his sanity at the time of the offense. We affirm the conviction.

The question presented is neatly posed by the trial judge’s special findings of fact:

These findings are fully supported by the evidence. The government presented overwhelming evidence, which the defense did not attempt to rebut, that Burnim committed the robbery with which he was charged. That evidence showed, among other things, that Burnim needed money to go to Alaska for the purpose of getting married, that before the robbery he drank a good deal of liquor to screw up his courage, and that after the robbery he hid in the woods and shaved off his beard and mustache in order to avoid being caught.

Burnim took the stand and admitted all the essential facts alleged in the indictment. His sole defense was insanity. On that issue, the court’s findings are supported by the testimony of two psychiatrists, Dr. Harris, called by Burnim, and Dr. Johnson, called by the government. Indeed, the findings track their testimony with precision. Under these findings, no other verdict than guilty was possible.

Unarmed bank robbery, as defined in the first paragraph of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a), is a general intent crime, not a specific intent crime. United States v. Hartfield, 9 Cir., 1975, 513 F.2d 254, 259 ; United States v. Porter, 9 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 7, 10 . Voluntary intoxication is no defense to such a crime. United States v. Meeker, 9 Cir., 1975, 527 F.2d 12, 14 .

In evaluating Burnim’s mental state, the court was obliged to disregard whatever incapacitating effects were attributable to the voluntary ingestion of alcohol. When these effects were removed from consideration, only Burnim’s inherent mental problems remained. These problems, however, did not render Burnim insane within the meaning of Wade v. United States, 9 Cir., 1970, 426 F.2d 64 , nor did they render his drinking involuntary. As the district judge correctly stated in explaining his decision,

Kane v. United States, 9 Cir., 1968, 399 F.2d 730 , is in point. There, Kane was charged with murder. His defense was insanity. The evidence showed that, like Burnim, he suffered from brain damage. Psychiatrists described him as “sane but vulnerable” (id. at 735), making him subject to “pathological intoxication,” which meant that, if he drank, he could become “insane” under the so-called M’Naghten rules then in effect in this Circuit. Kane knew that his drinking could cause blackouts and violent behavior, and his drinking was voluntary. We held in an opinion by Judge Hamley, that the pathological intoxication did not establish the insanity defense:

In the case at bar, Burnim’s argument is exactly like the argument rejected by us in Kane . It is true that since Kane was decided, we have rejected the M’Naghten definition of insanity in favor of a modified form of the American Law Institute’s proposed rules. Wade v. United States, supra. But nothing in Wade purports to change the rule that the mental disability, however defined, must have been brought about by circumstances beyond the control of the actor. That is the rule that the trial court properly applied in this case.

Burnim claims too much for United States v. Cooper, 9 Cir., 1972, 465 F.2d 451 , which he cites for the broad proposition that “the voluntary intoxication rule applies only where intoxication was the sole factor in bringing about the defendant’s state of mind.” In Cooper a psychiatrist testified that the defendant was not responsible for his crime because he was suffering from the combined effects of acute pain, mental illness, and over-consumption of the tranquilizer Valium when he committed it. Relying on Buatte v. United States, 9 Cir., 1964, 330 F.2d 342 , we held that this testimony shifted to the government the burden of proving the defendant sane beyond a reasonable doubt and that the government had presented insufficient testimony in rebuttal to carry its burden. In Cooper we did not reach, nor were we obliged to reach, the issue of voluntary intoxication. We did not conclude that the defendant’s voluntary ingestion of Valium did, or did not, bar a successful insanity defense. We merely held that the lay testimony presented by the government in that case was insufficient as a matter of law to support a determination, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Cooper was sane when he committed the offense with which he was charged. Here, on the other hand, the evidence does support the finding of the trial court that Burnim’s “insanity” was the product of his voluntary intoxication, in the absence of which he would not have been insane.

Affirmed.