What is the legal test for error in failing to instruct the jury on the elements of possession?

"[I]n a noncapital case, error in failing sua sponte to instruct, or to instruct fully, on all lesser included offenses and theories thereof which are supported by the evidence must be reviewed for prejudice exclusively under [People v.] Watson [(1956) 46 Cal.2d 818]." (People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 178.) Under that standard, a conviction can only be reversed if, after the court reviews the entire cause and evidence, it finds that it is reasonably probable that a more favorable outcome would have resulted for defendant without the error. (People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836.)

In this case, it is not reasonably probable that defendant would have received a more favorable outcome with a jury instruction on the elements of simple possession. "Jurors are presumed to be intelligent persons capable of understanding and correlating jury instructions." (People v. Tatman (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1, 11.) The jurors were given an instruction for possession for sale