Is a teacher's error that omits an element of a charged offense subject to review?

U.S. 18, 24 (Chapman) [clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect the verdict] standards of review. Chapman applies to an instructional error which lowers the prosecution's burden of proving each element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Flood (1998) 18 Cal.4th 470, 491-504.) Thus, an instructional error that omits an element of a charged offense is subject to review under Chapman because it allows the jury to find the defendant guilty without finding that that particular element has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. (Neder v. United States (1999) 527 U.S. 1, 15-17; People v. Flood, supra, at pp. 491-492.)