In People v. Glenos (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1201, the defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction for making space available for the manufacture of methamphetamine in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11366.5, subdivision (a). (Glenos, supra, 7 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1210-1212.) The trial court had not instructed the jury that the controlled substance must be shown to be for sale or distribution. While there was evidence of an intent on the part of the manufacturers to sell or distribute the controlled substance, there was no evidence that the defendant had knowledge of that fact. ( Id. at pp. 1211-1212.) On appeal, the court held that the trial court failed to instruct the jury on an element of the offense and that, on the evidence presented, the defendant could not have been convicted. ( Id. at p. 1212.)