Does the error in CALCRIM No. 875 in defining a deadly weapon constitute a harmless beyond a reasonable doubt?

Put another way, given the weight of the evidence and testimony focusing on how defendant used the box cutter, the arguments of both counsel, and the fact the People did not even mention the invalid theory, any error in not omitting the language concerning an "inherently deadly" weapon when defining a "deadly weapon" was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We are persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt the error in CALCRIM No. 875 was unimportant in relation to everything else the jury considered. (People v. Brown (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1, 13-14.)

Invoking People v. Dueas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Dueas), defendant contends the trial court violated due process principles by imposing costs that it believed were mandatory, and therefore, the matter should be remanded for a determination of his ability to pay the costs. We disagree.