The Court of Appeal concludes that the trial court’s granting of the prosecution request to amend the definition of force in pattern jury instructions for forcible rape (PC 261) and forcible oral copulation (PC 287) was erroneous and prejudicial. The amendment which added, “Force also includes the physical movement and positioning of the female’s body to accomplish the act” was legally incorrect because it suggested that physical movement will always satisfy the force element for the charged offenses.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/H050387.PDF