In People v. Corral (1943) 60 Cal.App.2d 66, the defendant entered a store, took a suit, placed it inside his trousers, and left the store. (Id. at pp. 68-69.) He was charged with burglary for allegedly entering the store with the intent to commit theft. (Id. at p. 68.) The trial court instructed on the offense of burglary using the language of section 459 (i.e., every person who enters any store or other building with intent to commit grand or petit theft is guilty of burglary). (Id. at pp. 70, 72.) On appeal, the defendant argued the trial court erred by not further defining "theft," which purportedly "left the jury in ignorance of the precise nature of the intent on defendant's part which must be shown to support a conviction of burglary." (Id. at p. 72.) Corral stated: "It may well be that in some cases of burglary such an argument would be well taken, but this is not one of them. Only one sort of theft--larceny--was indicated by the evidence, and the showing of defendant's intent to commit that crime is so clear that we do not see how the jury could have had any doubt about it, or misunderstood the instruction." (People v. Corral, supra, 60 Cal.App.2d at p. 72.) Therefore, because the evidence could have supported only a finding of intent to commit theft by larceny, Corral concluded the trial court did not err by not further defining the term "theft" as included in its instruction on burglary. (People v. Corral, supra, 60 Cal.App.2d at p. 72.) Corral further concluded, even had the trial court erred by not further instructing on the term "theft," that error did not cause a miscarriage of justice (i.e., was not prejudicial error). (People v. Corral, supra, 60 Cal.App.2d at p. 72.)