Is there any error or error in instructing the jury that burglary required the intent to commit one of the two felonies?

There was no error here. The court properly instructed the jury that burglary required the intent to commit one of the two felonies, which is consistent with the statutory definition of burglary. Appellant cites no authority disproving of CALCRIM No. 1700, a correct statement of the law. Nor does he cite any authority showing the court was required to instruct that an intent to commit a misdemeanor did not satisfy the second element of burglary. The court has a constitutional duty to instruct on every material element of an offense (People v. Flood (1998) 18 Cal.4th 470, 480)not every possible negative implication of the material elements. In any event, when the jurors asked about the issue, the court correctly replied that simple assault could not support the burglary charge. Appellant asserts the jury's question "irrefragably shows that appellant's jury was ready to convict appellant of the lesser included misdemeanor charge until it received the trial court's response that its decision had to be based on general intent, which was an incorrect statement of law in response to the question asked." The court's response, quoted verbatim above, says nothing about the jury basing its decision on general intent.