The harmless error rule of Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 36 87 S. Ct. 824, 833, 17 L. Ed. 2d 705, 24 A.L.R.3d 1065 applies to a jury instruction that omits an element of an offense. (Neder v. United States (1999) 527 U.S. 1, 18 119 S. Ct. 1827, 1838, 144 L. Ed. 2d 35; People v. Flood (1998) 18 Cal. 4th 470, 504 76 Cal. Rptr. 2d 180, 957 P.2d 869.) Specifically, "Is it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error ?" (Neder, supra, at p. 18 119 S. Ct. at p. 1838.) Error is harmless "where an omitted element is supported by uncontroverted evidence," as "where a defendant did not, and apparently could not, bring forth facts contesting the omitted element . . . ." (Neder v. United States, supra, 527 U.S. at pp. 18-19 119 S. Ct. at p. 1838.) Stated differently: "A court . . . asks whether the record contains evidence that could rationally lead to a contrary finding with respect to the omitted element. If the answer to that question is 'no,' holding the error harmless does not 'reflect a denigration of the constitutional rights involved." (Id. at p. 19 119 S. Ct. at p. 1839.)