People v. Forrest
237 Cal. App. 4th 1074
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- At a San Diego courthouse, defendant Taheedah Forrest angrily confronted and struck her sister‑in‑law, Patria Smith, who was testifying against Forrest’s brother; surveillance video and witness testimony supported the attack.
- Forrest was convicted by a jury of (1) dissuading a witness from testifying (Pen. Code §136.1(a)(1)) with a true finding she used force or threatened force (§136.1(c)(1)), and (2) making a criminal threat (§422).
- Sentence: three years’ formal probation, with a condition to serve 365 days in local custody (court orally pronounced 365 days; written minute/probation orders mistakenly said 372).
- On appeal Forrest raised: admissibility of a DA investigator’s testimony about a threat assessment/witness protection recommendation; prosecutorial vouching misconduct; failure to instruct on attempted criminal threat as a lesser included offense; and constitutional vagueness/overbreadth challenges to probation conditions 6.d., 12.f., and 12.g.
- The Attorney General conceded the written orders should be corrected to match the oral pronouncement (365 days).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Forrest) | Defendant's Argument (People) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of DA investigator’s testimony about conducting a threat assessment and recommending witness protection | Testimony was prejudicial and improper | Testimony explained witness’s state and relocation needs after the attack | Court implicitly upheld admission (no reversal on this ground) |
| Prosecutorial vouching/misconduct | Prosecutor impermissibly vouched, violating due process | No prejudicial vouching occurred or it was harmless | No reversible prosecutorial‑misconduct error found |
| Failure to instruct on attempted criminal threat as lesser included offense | Court should have sua sponte instructed jury on attempt to make a criminal threat | No duty to instruct or any omission was harmless | No reversible error on failure to instruct (conviction affirmed) |
| Probation conditions 6.d. and 12.f. (weapons prohibitions) — vagueness/overbreadth | Conditions vague (e.g., “replica”, “instrument used as a weapon”) and overbroad for lacking self‑defense exception | Conditions are reasonably specific and public‑safety justified; omission of self‑defense exception is appropriate | Conditions 6.d. and 12.f. upheld as constitutional |
| Probation condition 12.g. (presence of weapons) — overbreadth | Condition prohibits being where legally armed security is present, impinging association and access to courts | Needs tailoring to prevent knowing access to weapons while preserving public safety | Condition 12.g. modified to: “Do not remain in the presence of any person who you know illegally possesses a firearm, deadly weapon, or ammunition. Also, do not remain in a building, in a vehicle, or in the presence of any person when you knowingly have ready access to a firearm, regardless of whether it is lawfully possessed or was lawfully acquired.” |
| Clerical errors in written orders (custody days) | Written orders incorrectly state 372 days rather than the orally pronounced 365 days | Attorney General concedes error | Remand to correct the October 28 minute and probation orders to reflect 365 days |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Olguin, 45 Cal.4th 375 (broad discretion in setting probation conditions; evaluate condition’s meaning from reasonable objective reader)
- In re Sheena K., 40 Cal.4th 875 (distinguishes vagueness and overbreadth challenges to probation conditions; fair‑warning standard)
- People v. Lopez, 66 Cal.App.4th 615 (probation conditions evaluated in context; reasonable specificity required)
- In re E.O., 188 Cal.App.4th 1149 (overbreadth analysis; modify and affirm conditions when appropriate)
- In re Victor L., 182 Cal.App.4th 902 (closeness‑of‑fit test for restrictions on constitutional rights under probation)