Does the Attorney General have sufficient evidence to prove force for purposes of robbery?

The Attorney General also argues that because the victim testified the grab was "forceful," there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate force for purposes of a robbery. Again, we disagree. Witnesses may not generally testify about issues of law or draw legal conclusions. (See People v. Torres (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 37, 45.) Such conclusory testimony is not substantial evidence. (Downer v. Bramet (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 837, 841-842 [legal conclusion by expert witness was not substantial evidence].) In other words, the victim's testimony that the taking was "forceful" is not of such solid value that a trier of fact would find beyond a reasonable doubt that it satisfied the force element for robbery.

Page 7