California v. Forrest
Annotate this CaseDefendant Taheedah Forrest physically attacked and threatened her sister-in-law, Patria Smith, who was testifying as a prosecution witness against Forrest's brother (Smith's husband) during his robbery trial. IA jury convicted Forrest of: (1) dissuading a witness (Smith) from testifying; and (2) making a criminal threat. As to count 1 the jury found to be true an allegation that Forrest committed and attempted to commit that offense through the use of force and an express and implied threat of force. The court sentenced Forrest to three years' formal probation, conditioned on her serving 365 days in jail with credit for time already served. On appeal, Forrest challenged her convictions, contending: (1) the court prejudicially erred by allowing an investigator to testify for the prosecution that he had conducted a threat assessment for the district attorney's office and had determined that Smith should be placed in a witness protection program; (2) the prosecutor committed misconduct by prejudicially engaging in impermissible vouching in violation of Forrest's federal constitutional right to due process; and (3) the court prejudicially erred by failing to instruct the jury sua sponte on the lesser included offense of attempting to make a criminal threat. Forrest also argued that three conditions of her probation were unconstitutionally vague and/or overbroad and had to be either stricken or modified. In addition, Forrest argued that both an October 28, 2013 minute order and an October 28 probation order had to be corrected to reflect the court's oral pronouncement of sentence that she serve 365 days (not 372 days) in local custody as a condition of her probation. The Attorney General acknowledges the minute order and probation order needed to be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement of judgment. After review, the Court of Appeal modified condition 12.g. of Forrest's probation in order to avoid unconstitutional overbreadth, and affirmed the judgment as so modified. However, the Court remanded the matter to the superior court with directions to correct the October 28 minute order and the October 28 probation order to reflect the court's oral pronouncement of sentence that she serve 365 days in local custody as a condition of her probation.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.