In People v. Williams (2001) 25 Cal.4th 441the jury was instructed in part "that the crime of assault requires proof of these elements; A person willfully and unlawfully committed an act that by its nature would probably and directly result in the application of physical force on another person; and At the time the act was committed, such person had the present ability to apply physical force to the person of another.'" (People v. Williams, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 783.) The court found the jury instruction given on assault was potentially ambiguous on the question of defendant's knowledge. "Because 'the test of natural and probable consequences is an objective one' citation, merely requiring the jury to find that a defendant willfully and unlawfully committed an act that by its nature would probably and directly result in physical force being applied to the person of another may permit a conviction premised on facts the defendant should have known but did not actually know. Thus, under the instruction given, a jury could conceivably convict a defendant for assault even if he did not actually know the facts sufficient to establish that his act by its nature would probably and directly result in a battery." (People v. Williams, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 790.) In People v. Williams (2001) 26 Cal.4th 779, the court held that while "assault does not require a specific intent to cause injury or a subjective awareness of the risk that injury might occur" ( id. at p. 790), it does require "an intentional act and actual knowledge of those facts sufficient to establish that the act by its nature will probably and directly result in the application of physical force to another." (Ibid.) The court held that a jury instruction on assault such as the one given here is "potentially ambiguous" because it "may permit a conviction premised on facts the defendant should have known but did not actually know." (Ibid.) Nevertheless, the court concluded that "any instructional error is largely technical and is unlikely to affect the outcome of most assault cases, because a defendant's knowledge of the relevant factual circumstances is rarely in dispute." (Ibid.)