What is the test for a jury to convict an appellant of aggravated mayhem and/or aggravated mayhem?

Moreover, with respect to the aggravated mayhem charge, defense counsel argued that it was a specific intent crime, which meant that appellant "must not only intend to do harm," but intended to "do [the] harm which was caused by the injury"; and as to the laceration to Flores's eyelid, if he intended to harm her generically, then that would not fit the legal definition of specific intent to disfigure. Counsel went on to say that the People had to prove that appellant intended to disfigure Flores i.e. remove a body part her eyelid. Later, defense counsel argued, "[t]he injury itself is not and cannot be the sole reason that you imply specific intent." Based on the instructions given, appellant could and did defend on the theory that he lacked the requisite intent, and defense counsel's argument fully explored this theme. (See People v. Gutierrez (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1083, 1144-1145 [if failure to give pinpoint instruction was error, it was harmless because nothing in the instructions given precluded the jury from adopting the defense theory, which was fully covered in counsel's argument].)

Page 17