How have courts dealt with a constitutional error in the definition of a word?

^10. Because we conclude the error is structural, we need not address prejudice. We emphasize, however, that if the error were "one of confusion and misdirection" rather than "incorrect definition," as the People suggest, we would conclude that the People have established neither that the jury applied the correct burden of proof nor that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 [reversal required for federal constitutional errors unless the People "prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained."].)