Is there any reversible error in giving a jury an instruction of "willfully" or "revolving" in a criminal case?

The next instruction complained of was given at appellant's request, thus he may not be heard to argue that it was reversible error. (People v. Williams, supra, 102 Cal.App.3d 1018, 1025, 162 Cal.Rptr. 748.) We refer to the point, nevertheless, because of appellant's various contentions concerning competency of his counsel. The error claimed is the giving of instruction CALJIC No. 1.20, which reads as follows: "The word 'willfully', when applied to the intent with which an act is done or omitted and as used in my instructions, implies simply a purpose or willingness to commit the act or to make the omission in question. The word does not require in its meaning any intent to violate law, or to injure another, or to acquire any advantage."

It has been held that giving this instruction is error where the crimes involved require specific intent, but that no prejudicial error results where the jury has been otherwise instructed on specific intent. (People v. Warren, (1959) 175 Cal.App.2d 233, 240, 346 P.2d 64.) The jury in the present case was instructed fully as to the required mental states and intent for the crimes involved. There was no reasonable probability that refusal of the instruction would have contributed to a better result for appellant.