What is the test for a jury to convict a defendant of sexual assault where they failed to instruct on sexual intent as an element of the crime?

Nevertheless, we find the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. First, a reasonable juror would have understood the instructions to require that defendant acted with the intent to gratify, arouse, or abuse to be guilty of the crime. Second, the evidence is not susceptible to any determination other than that defendant acted with such intent. Defendant had invited the victim alone to his house to spend the night. When she tried to go into another room to sleep, he brought her back to his bed, kissed her, and told her he would "take [her] virginity." There could be no other explanation for his penetration of her than sexual arousal, gratification, or abuse. The error did not contribute to defendant's conviction. (See People v. Sengpadychith (2001) 26 Cal.4th 316, 324-325 [a trial court's failure to instruct on an element of a crime is federal constitutional error requiring reversal unless it can be shown "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the error did not contribute to the jury's verdict].)

Page 8

The judgment is affirmed.