Is a federal court's failure to instruct the jury on an element of a sentence enhancement provision a constitutional error?

"[A] trial court's failure to instruct the jury on an element of a sentence enhancement provision (other than one based on a prior conviction), is federal constitutional error if the provision 'increases the penalty for [the underlying] crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum.' [Citation.] Such error is reversible under [Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 (Chapman)], unless it can be shown 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that the error did not contribute to the jury's verdict." (Sengpadychith, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 326.)

To determine whether an error is harmless under this standard, we must " 'conduct a thorough examination of the record. If, at the end of that examination, the court cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury verdict would have been the same absent the errorfor example, where the defendant contested the omitted element and raised evidence sufficient to support a contrary findingit should not find the error harmless.' [Citation.] On the other hand, instructional error is harmless 'where a reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that the omitted element was uncontested and supported by overwhelming evidence.' [Citations.] Our task, then, is to determine 'whether the record contains evidence that could rationally lead to a contrary

Page 15

finding with respect to the omitted element.' " (People v. Mil (2012) 53 Cal.4th 400, 417.)