the trial justice failed to give a general definition of “intercept,” defendant also objected to the fact that no definit to the jury verbatim, instructing the jurors that one who “willfully intercepts, attempts to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or attempt to intercept, any wire or oral communication” is guilty of this crime. He also carefully instructed the jurors that the defendant could not be convicted of this crime unless there was an interception of an “oral communication.” Thereafter, the jury found defendant guilty of violating § 11-35-21(a). In doing so, the jury necessarily found that an oral communication had been intercepted; that is, “acquired aurally * * * through the use of [an] intercepting device.” See State v. Hazard, 745 A.2d 748, 753 (R.I.2000) (<HOLDING>). Here, as the trial justice ruled in li-mine,
holding that an instructional error is harmless if no rational jury could have made its findings without also finding the omitted  fact to be true holding that instructional error on missing element is harmless if no rational jury could have found the defendant  guilty of violating the statute without also making the proper finding as to the missing element holding that when the jury finds facts that are so closely related to the omitted element that no rational jury could find those facts without also finding the omitted element this exercise amounts to the functional equivalent of the omitted element holding that error is not harmless if the defendant contested the omitted element and raised evidence to support a contrary finding holding that knowledge element could not be deemed in favor of plaintiff where defendant objected to the omission of that element from the jury charge