verdict is error if based on an instruction which does not require the jury to find each element of the offense before convicting, and holding that such error “cannot be treated as harmless”). The Fifth Circuit has also declined to adopt a per se rule that failing to instruct on an essential element can never be harmless error. See United States v. Brown, 616 F.2d 844, 846 (5th Cir.1980) (“Dicta to the contrary notwithstanding ... we divine no rule that failure to specifically to instruct on any single essential element of a crime per se constitutes plain error.” (Citations omitted)). The Ninth Circuit likewise is amenable to finding that a trial court’s failure to instruct on an element of the crime charged can be harmless. See United States v. Valdez, 594 F.2d 725, 729 (9th Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>). Cf. United States v. King, 587 F.2d 956, 966
recognizing that trial courts failure to instruct jury on element of offense is harmless when existence of element is uncontested and supported by overwhelming evidence holding under a plain error analysis that a failure to charge the jury with an essential element did not warrant reversal of the conviction where the evidence supporting that element was overwhelming holding that the failure to instruct on a definition or to amplify an element is not a failure to instruct on an essential element holding that failure to instruct on an essential element was harmless error because the element was so clearly established holding that failure to submit an element of the offense to the jury is subject to harmless error analysis