right to have a Court correctly and intelligently instruct the jury on the essential and material elements of the crime charged and required to be proven by competent evidence. Such protection afforded an accused cannot be treated with impunity under the guise of ‘harmless error.’ Gerds v. State, 64 So.2d 916, 916 (Fla. 1953) (emphasis added). This is especially true in situations like the present case where the omission of an element is brought to the trial court’s attention. See Scott, 808 So.2d at 170-71 (“Since the jury is entitled to be instructed on the elements of the offense, it cannot be harmless error to fail to do so especially when the omission is brought to the attention of the trial court by the defendant.”); see also Davis v. State, 839 So.2d 734, 735 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (<HOLDING>). Reversed and remanded for a new trial. Gross
holding that failure to give proper instruction regarding disputed element of crime charged was fundamental error requiring reversal and stating that fundamental error is not subject to harmless error review holding that instructional errors that are trial errors are subject to harmless error analysis holding that the omission of an element is subject to harmless error analysis holding that although a defendants theory of defense may be considered in analyzing whether the omission of a required element constitutes fundamental error such considerations are irrelevant when reviewing preserved errors for harmless error holding trial errors are subject to a harmless error analysis