The defendant, Larry Richard Stoner, was convicted of unarmed robbery1 upon his plea of guilty. He appeals claiming that the trial court failed to comply with the requirements of the court rule2 and of the statute3 as elucidated in People v. Barrows (1959), 358 Mich 267. There the Michigan Supreme Court declared that as (p 272) “a precaution against involuntary or induced false pleas of guilty, and against subsequent false claims of innocence” a trial judge must by direct questioning of a guilty-pleading defendant both establish the crime and his participation in its commission.4
The information filed in this case charged that on December 30, 1967, Stoner and another person assaulted and robbed Ralph Smith of $280 and that at the time the offense was committed they were not armed with a dangerous weapon. At the arraignment on the information, Stoner offered to plead guilty. He denied precise recollection of his actions because of intoxication at the time of the offense. His memory was not improved at the time of sentencing.
Stoner was 18 years old, indigent, had no prior criminal record, and was AWOL from the Marine Corps. He had turned himself in to the military authorities, but was not confined.
The people assert that voluntary intoxication is not a defense to crime and rely on People v. Garbutt *601(1868), 17 Mich 9, where the Michigan Supreme Court held that the trial judge had correctly refused to allow the defendant to interpose an intoxication defense, saying (p 19):
“A man who voluntarily puts himself in condition to have no control of his actions, must he held to intend the consequences.”
In People v. Kelley (1970), 21 Mich App 612, we reviewed the decisions of the Michigan Supreme Court subsequent to Garbutt and concluded that in Michigan, as elsewhere, all that is meant hy the maxim “voluntary intoxication is no excuse for crime” is that the element of every common-law crime sometimes referred to as “general intent,” cannot he negatived hy evidence that the actor was intoxicated at the time the crime was committed. But that where the people must prove that the actor entertained a specific intent in addition to general intent, intoxication can he shown to negative a requisite specific intent.5
In People v. Walker (1878), 38 Mich 156, the defendant’s conviction of larceny was reversed because the trial judge refused to charge that intoxication could be a defense. The Supreme Court declared (p 158):
“While it is true that drunkenness cannot excuse crime, it is equally true that when a certain intent is a necessary element in a crime, the crime cannot have been committed when the intent did not exist. In larceny the crime does not consist in the wrongful taking of the property, for that might he a mere trespass; hut it consists in the wrongful taking with felonious intent; and if the defendant, for any rea*602son whatever, indulged no such intent, the crime cannot have been committed.”
Subsequently, on fundamentally the same analysis, the Supreme Court held that burglary and breaking and entering are specific intent crimes.6 In Kelley we reasoned that since larceny is, as held in Walker, a specific intent crime and robbery is larceny committed by assault or putting in fear,7 robbery too was a specific intent crime.8
In a number of cases our Court has rejected claims that a guilty plea should be set aside because the defendant was intoxicated at the time the offense was committed. In those cases, however, the defendant did not, as did Stoner, assert that he was so deeply intoxicated that he could not recall his participation in the commission of the offense.9
*603After Stoner offered to plead guilty, the trial judge asked him to relate what had occurred. He responded:
“Well, it started out sir, I was pulling an axle for a buddy of mine and Eon come home from work. He come down and he went to this place and had supper * * * and we started riding around in town and started drinking and we was over to Tower and then came back over to Onaway and from there on we started drinking pretty heavy and then I remember winding up down there at somebody’s house and remember going in the house and remember the old man that was in there. From there on out, it is pretty fuzzy, sir. But I know I was the only one in the house; whatever happened.
“The Court: Did you take any money or anything?
“Defendant: Yes, sir, I must have because I had lots of it. I don’t remember whether I hurt the old man or what happened, sir.
“The Court: But you did this?
“Defendant: Yes, sir, I did.
“The Court: You know that it is wrong, do you?
“Defendant: Yes, sir I found out, sir, but it’s too late. I grew out of my smartness.”
At sentencing the following occurred:
“The Court: You are claiming that you were too drunk; that you didn’t know that you did that that night, is that right?
“Defendant: I remember some of the things I did, but some of it is still hazy. I don’t remember what I done.
*604 “The Court: You do remember that you did go there ?
“Defendant: Yes, I remember that.
“The Court: And you came away with the money?
“Defendant: Yes, sir.
“The Court: And the particular individual from whom the money was removed was 81 years of age. Did you know that?
“Defendant: No, sir, I didn’t.
“The Court: Did you know he was an old, old man?
“Defendant: No, sir, I never knew the man.
“The Court: How did you happen to find out about it in the beginning?
“Defendant: Somebody in the car. I still can’t figure out who it was, but sorqebody said somebody had some money and I was just drunk enough that I didn’t give a darn about what happened or anything.”
It is apparent that while Stoner acknowledged that he was in the old man’s house and had come into possession of a substantial sum of money, he did not remember participating in either the planning or the commission of the offense: “somebody said somebody had some money,” and he, Stoner, was “just drunk enough” that he did not “give a darn about what happened or anything”. He remembered winding up at somebody’s house, going into the house and the old man who was there. And he remembered coming away from the house with money — “lots of it.” But he could not recall what occurred at the house: “it is pretty fuzzy, sir. * * * I don’t remember whether I hurt the old man or what happened, sir”. “I remember some of the things I did, but some of it is still hazy. I don’t remember what I done.” (Emphasis supplied.)
In People v. Richard E. Johnson (1967), 8 Mich App 204, the defendant was charged with man*605slaughter. The people’s evidence showed that the victim had been fishing from a trestle extending over a river when he was either intentionally or accidentally pushed, shoved or struck by the defendant and fell into the river where he drowned. At the trial, the defendant offered to plead guilty at the conclusion of the presentation of the people’s case. During the judge’s questioning, the defendant said, “I accidentally pushed him in,” and “I didn’t have no intention to push him in the river”. We reversed the defendant’s conviction upon his accepted guilty plea and remanded for a new trial, saying (p 210): “Viewing the proceedings in their entirety we conclude that the equivocal nature of the defendant’s answers should have led the trial court to conclude that a question of fact had been presented and accordingly reject the plea of guilty”.
In People v. Stewart (1968), 10 Mich App 553, the defendant was charged with unarmed robbery and pled guilty to a charge of attempted unarmed robbery. There were other participants, as in this case. We set aside the conviction because the trial judge had (p 558) “not performed his mandatory duty to ascertain the truth of the plea offered”. We said that the record contained (p 556) “several warnings to the trial court that he might have reason to suspect the truth of the offered plea”.10 *606During the examination by the judge, the defendant said that when they reached the scene of the crime one of the other defendants pulled a gun and another jumped on the victim and assaulted him and took his wallet and watch but asserted, “I didn’t know it was going to happen”. Later, in response to a question from the court whether he “would have helped commit this offense,” he responded, “I would have helped, yes”.
In People v. Mason (1968), 13 Mich App 277, the defendant pled guilty to a charge of breaking and entering in the nighttime. During the examination by the judge the defendant said (p 278):
“A. I understand everything. There is a mention — the time of entering was in the daytime — not in the night.
“Q. You are charged with entering in the nighttime.
“A. I understand that.”
Mason, in language similar to that used by Stoner in this case, said (p 279) “I am guilty of the charge. I am sorry it happened. I realize I violated the laws of society”. Nevertheless, we reversed. The record affirmatively showed that Mason asserted or attempted to assert that the offense occurred in the daytime, not in the nighttime. The requisite factual basis for a plea of guilty — the truth of the plea— had not been established.
*607Recently in People v. Anderson (1970), 23 Mich App 9, the defendant’s plea of guilty was set aside because of “the equivocation surrounding the inquiry into the truthfulness of the plea” and “the uncertainty created by defendant’s answer.” During the inquiry the defendant was asked whether the facts related at the preliminary examination were true. The “defendant answered, ‘Partially, yes.’ The Court then asked, ‘It was approximately true?’ and the defendant answered ‘Yes.’ The record is void of any further inquiry to determine what was true and what was not”.
While a trial judge may not be obliged to search out possible defenses, in this case it has not been made to appear that Stoner planned or participated in the commission of the robbery. While Stoner was present11 when “someone” planned or suggested commission of a robbery, he claimed he was too drunk to care what happened. And while he obtained proceeds of the alleged robbery, he did not recall the robbery itself or participating in it. A factual basis12 for his guilty plea was not established.13
We do not mean to be understood as saying that a plea of guilty may not be accepted merely because a defendant says that by reason of intoxication he cannot recall his participation in the commission of the offense. However, where the defendant claims that he cannot recall participating, the inquiry must go further: Is the defendant aware that if his claim to being so completely intoxicated that he cannot recall participating is believed by the trier of fact, *608that the trier would then be obliged to acquit him? If so, why then is the defendant pleading guilty?
We recognize that a defendant may wish to waive a possible defense and plead guilty simply because he has concluded that the trier of fact will not believe him. The people’s evidence that the defendant was not intoxicated may be overwhelming.
When a defendant claims that because of intoxication he does not recall participating in the commission of the offense, but, nevertheless, desires to plead guilty, the people should be asked to produce evidence negating the intoxication defense. Such evidence might appear in the transcript of a preliminary examination presented to and read by the trial judge before accepting the plea.14 If from such evidence it appears that the people can substantially refute a claim of intoxication, then a factual basis for the defendant’s plea would appear without regard to his own acknowledged recollection of what occurred.15 Upon such a showing and express and knowledgeable waiver of the defense by the defendant, the judge could properly accept the plea.
There would then, in the words of the Barrows Court, be a basis for concluding that there had been (p 272) “reasonable ascertainment of the truth of the plea”. We would then have no reason to be concerned that the defendant’s plea was not an “understanding” plea.16 It would then appear, as we said in Bartlett (p 209), “that there is a factual basis for the plea, that the plea is a truthful, honest plea of guilty to an offense of which the accused person might well be convicted upon trial.”
The plea of guilty in this case is set aside, the conviction is reversed, and the case is remanded for trial.
All concurred.