What is the test for a federal jury to convict a defendant of a charge of possessing a usable quantity of methamphetamine?

"[T]he complete failure to instruct as to an element of an offense violates the United States Constitution because such relieves the prosecution of its burden of proving all of the elements of the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.] This rule is subject to the qualification that no constitutional violation occurs if there is a reasonable likelihood the jurors understood they were required to find the omitted element to be true in order to return a guilty verdict. [Citations.]" (People v. Avila (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 642, 653, 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 853.)

Applying the foregoing to the present case, we conclude defendant's federal constitutional jury trial right was violated when the trial court failed to instruct the jury that it had to find defendant transported a usable quantity of methamphetamine in order to convict him of the charged crime. As the omission was neither supplied by another instruction nor cured in light of the instructions as a whole, there is no reasonable likelihood the jurors understood the usable quantity element was necessary for a conviction. (People v. Wright (1985) 39 Cal.3d 576, 589, 217 Cal.Rptr. 212, 703 P.2d 1106.)