Does a jury have a duty to receive written instructions explaining the concurrence of act and intent required for a crime under section 386 of the California Criminal Code?

Further, it appears from the record that the jury did not receive written instructions explaining the concurrence of act and intent required for the crimes at issue. This does not constitute error in and of itself. ( People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 845, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 400, 938 P.2d 2 [no federal or state constitutional right to instructions in writing].) However, the trial court's verbal instruction with respect to section 386 was a near verbatim recital of the standard instruction on general intent set forth in CALCRIM No. 250.³ Given that section 386 is a specific intent crime, the trial court had a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury as to the requisite mental state. ( People v. Alvarez (1996) 14 Cal.4th 155, 220, 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 385, 926 P.2d 365 [Even in the absence of a request, a trial court must deliver an instruction of this sort as to a given crime if it is one of specific intent. ]; Cleaves, supra, 229 Cal.App.3d at p. 380, fn. 14, 280 Cal.Rptr. 146 [[T]he court must on its own motion give a specific intent instruction when a specific intent crime is charged.].) Thus, the trial court erred by instructing the jury with CALCRIM No. 250, which defines general intent, instead of using an instruction such as CALCRIM No. 251, which defines specific intent.