In what circumstances will the court allow the jury to define the crime of theft as a crime of intent?

In any event, we will assume for purposes of argument that the trial court erred by failing to define the crime of theft for the jury. We conclude, however, that the error was harmless. In addressing the prejudice issue, the parties agree that the federal harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard applies. (See People v. Hughes, supra, 27 Cal.4th at pp. 352-353.)⁵ The prosecution's theory with respect to all three burglary charges was that Mendoza forced entry into a car with the intent to steal the owner's property including, in particular, a car stereo. There was no confusion about these allegations, and the People did not pursue any alternate theories. Furthermore, the evidence supporting these charges was overwhelming and essentially uncontradicted. Under these circumstances, we conclude that, regardless of the applicable standard of prejudice, the outcome of this trial would not have been different if the jury had been given an additional instruction defining the word "theft."