Does the error of instructing the jury to determine whether the private driveway in which the drug sale took place was a public area constitute an error?

Although the trial court should have instructed the jury to determine whether the private driveway in which the drug sale took place was a public area, the error is not reversible per se because the trial court did not preclude jury consideration of all or substantially all of the elements of the enhancement. (Cf. People v. Cummings (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1233, 1313-1315, 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 796, 850 P.2d 1.) The effect of the court's instruction was the same as if it had instructed the jury if it found the offense took place in a private driveway then it must find the offense took place in a public area. Such an error is measured by the "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. (People v. Hedgecock (1990) 51 Cal.3d 395, 410, 272 Cal.Rptr. 803, 795 P.2d 1260; People v. Higareda, supra, 24 Cal.App.4th at p. 1406, 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 763.)