Does the Attorney General have any responsibility for omitting the definition of the element of assault with a deadly weapon?

The Attorney General does not dispute the court erred by omitting the definition of this element, but argues the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (See People v. Bragg, supra, 161 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1400-1401.) We agree. As to this error, defendant does not argue the error was prejudicial with respect to East Side, and the record contains compelling evidence that East Side satisfies the statutory requirements for this element. The record shows an East Side member sustained a conviction in June 2012 for an assault involving a stabbing, and in August 2012 defendant (an East Side gang member) committed the current assault with a knife. This evidence reflects that East Side members committed two of the statutorily specified offenses (i.e., two instances of assault with a deadly weapon); the last offense occurred within three years after a prior offense; and the two offenses were committed on separate occasions.⁴ As apparently recognized by defendant, given the strength of the evidence that East Side has engaged in

Page 16