Does a jury need to be told that the element of offense is not a given, not a required element, and that the omission of that element is a harmless error?

Neder v. United States (1999) 527 U.S. 1, 18-19 and People v. Flood (1998) 18 Cal.4th 470 do not support a contrary conclusion. In both cases, the omitted element was "uncontested and supported by overwhelming evidence" (Neder v. United States, supra, at p. 17; see People v. Flood, supra, at p. 475 [jury told that element of offense was a given]), and the failure to instruct on that element was therefore harmless error. It is not harmless error here, where evidence of the omitted element is not only not uncontroverted, it is nonexistent.