Does the jury need to find all the elements of the crimes to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

Moreover, both the prosecutor and defense counsel emphasized in argument the correct interpretation of the instructions on this point. The prosecutor discussed deliberation and specific intent during argument as two distinct elements of proof both of which were required to convict for first degree murder. Thereafter, defense counsel stressed that first degree murder requires proof of an intent to kill and premeditation and deliberation. Defense counsel argued that the instruction that defines what constitutes a deliberate and premeditated first degree killing is the whole crux of the case. Thus, nothing in the parties' arguments suggested that the jury need not find all the elements of the crimes to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. (Cf. People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 341, 116 Cal.Rptr.2d 401, 39 P.3d 432 (Hughes ) [any ambiguity in voluntary manslaughter instruction not prejudicial in light of instructions as a whole, evidence presented to jury, and counsels' legally correct arguments].)