People v. Force, 251 Cal. Rptr. 3d 834

Steven Force, committed as a sexually violent predator (SVP) at Coalinga State Hospital, petitioned for conditional release into CONREP; trial court denied the petition and appellant appealed.
The sole issue at trial was whether placement in CONREP would pose a serious and well-founded risk of sexually predatory reoffense.
Experts were split: two treating psychologists (Drs. Malinek and Brown) supported release despite Force having completed only SOTP modules 1–2; other evaluators and CONREP staff opposed release, citing a high Static-99R score and failure to reach module 3.
On the eve of trial, the prosecutor repeatedly raised the prospect of perjury with defense counsel regarding Force’s inconsistent prior sworn statements, prompting defense counsel to warn Force and ultimately causing Force to decline to testify.
The trial court also excluded Force’s 26‑page self‑authored release plan as hearsay, though the judge said he would nonetheless review it informally.
The Court of Appeal reversed, finding prosecutorial interference with Force’s right to testify and erroneous exclusion of the release plan were not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and remanded for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prosecutorial intimidation of defense witness / right to testify	Prosecutor repeatedly raised perjury as a consequence of Force testifying; that intimidated Force and caused him to forgo testifying, violating his constitutional right to present a defense	Any comments were theoretical; prosecutor denied threatening prosecution and said he would not charge Force; any effect was harmless given judge’s concerns about treatment progress	Reversed: prosecutor’s repeated perjury references impermissibly interfered with Force’s right to testify; prejudice not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; retrial ordered
Exclusion of Force’s written release plan (hearsay)	Plan admissible as Force’s statements of mind and relevant to dangerousness; exclusion compounded prejudice from intimidation	Exclusion harmless because plan was discussed by witnesses, judge reviewed it informally, and it had limited value to outcome	Reversed (in combination with testimony issue): exclusion was erroneous and, together with the testimony deprivation, required reversal and retrial

In re Martin, 44 Cal.3d 1 (Cal. 1987) (prosecutorial suggestion that witness may be prosecuted for testimony can impermissibly intimidate and deny the right to testify)
Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (U.S. 1987) (defendant has constitutional right to testify on own behalf)
People v. Allen, 44 Cal.4th 843 (Cal. 2008) (discusses harmlessness when defendant’s excluded testimony addresses peripheral issues in SVP dangerousness analysis)
United States v. LaPage, 231 F.3d 488 (9th Cir. 2000) (prosecutor’s special duty to assure fair trials given unique power)
People v. Masters, 62 Cal.4th 1019 (Cal. 2016) (recognizes circumstances where fairness may require immunity for a witness)