Does a court's failure to instruct on the specific intent required for a conviction on a theft theory constitute an error?

We disagree. Assuming the trial court's failure to instruct on the specific intent required for a conviction on a theft theory was error, we conclude any such error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Chun (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1172, 1201 [harmlessness of instructional error on elements of offenses must be established beyond a reasonable doubt].) This is so because " 'it [was] impossible, upon the evidence, to have found what the verdict did find without' " also making the findings necessary under a legally correct theory. (Id. at pp. 1204, 1205 [instructional error was harmless because given the evidence presented no juror could have found felony murder without also finding conscious-disregard-for-life malice].)