What is the test for a jury to convict a defendant of false imprisonment by violence or menace?

"False imprisonment is the unlawful violation of the personal liberty of another." ( 236.) "The offense becomes felonious when it is ^effected by violence, menace, fraud, or deceit...."' (People v. Reed (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, quoting 237.)

As we have noted, the trial court told the jury defendant was "charged... with false imprisonment by... violence or menace" and defined the terms "violence" and "menace" for the jury, but the court did not instruct the jury that the prosecution had to prove defendant restrained, confined, or detained the victim by violence or menace. As the People concede, this was error. "The trial court must instruct even without request on the general principles of law relevant to and governing the case. [Citation.] That obligation includes instructions on all of the elements of a charged offense." (People v. Cummings (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1233, 1311.) Here, the trial court did not fully and correctly instruct the jury on the "violence or menace" element of felony false imprisonment.

"It is appropriate and constitutionally permissible to analyze instructional error with regard to an element of an offense by the harmless error standard of Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 [17 L.Ed.2d 705...]." (People v. Brenner (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 335, 339.) "Such an error is reviewed to determine whether it appears ^beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.'" (People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825, 838.)

Page 9