How have courts interpreted "force" in determining whether a defendant has been found guilty of grand theft?

To the extent defendant argues that the trial court should have elaborated upon the definition of "force," his claim fails because he did not request such an instruction and the term has no technical meaning peculiar to the law. (People v. Anderson (1966) 64 Cal.2d 633, 639-640.)

It was, nonetheless, error for the trial court to enter judgment upon both the greater (robbery) and lesser included (grand theft) convictions. This error is easily solved by reversing the conviction for the lesser included offense. (People v. Sanders (2012) 55 Cal.4th 731, 736.)