Does the presence or absence of injury determine whether the force applied was likely to cause significant injury?

Defendant cites a number of cases for the proposition that the presence or absence of injury is highly probative of whether the force applied was likely to cause significant injury. These cases do not change our conclusion. In one of the cases relied upon by defendant, People v. Duke (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 296, the defendant put the victim in a momentary headlock that allowed her to breathe and scream, and "released her almost immediately" from this hold. (Id. at pp. 302-303.) The victim, moreover, did not describe herself as having been choked or strangled. (Id. at p. 302.) While the court concluded that the defendant could have applied enough force to produce great bodily injury, the force actually applied was not likely to produce serious harm. (Id. at p. 303.) Here, by contrast, there was physical evidence as well as testimony establishing that defendant actually used significant force in strangling Doe.