How have the courts interpreted the definition of assault?

Given the instructions the jury received identifying and partially describing a single target crime, there was no analytical room for the jury to engage in uninformed speculation about what types of conduct were criminal and constituted the target offense. Even without a definition of assault, we conclude it is not reasonably likely that the trial court's instructions caused the jury to misapply the law. (People v. Carrington (2009) 47 Cal.4th 145, 192.) We also find it was not reasonably probable that the trial's outcome would have been different in the absence of the trial court's instructional omission.