What is the test for a claim that the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury on the applicable principles of law?

"We review de novo a claim that the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury on the applicable principles of law. [Citation.]" (People v. Canizalez (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 832, 850.)

Section 288, subdivision (a), provides, in pertinent part, "any person who willfully and lewdly commits any lewd or lascivious act . . . upon or with the body, or any part or member thereof, of a child who is under the age of 14 years, with the intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust, passions, or sexual desires of that person or the child, is guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or eight years." "Section 288 . . . 'is part of a statutory scheme that recognizes that some touchings of children are always harmful and improper, whereas others may or may not be, depending upon the actor's intent. [] . . . [] Lewd or lascivious conduct in violation of section 288, subdivision (a) . . . requires 'the specific intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust of the child or the accused.' ([Citation], italics added.)" (People v. Warner (2006) 39 Cal.4th 548, 556-557.)