Will I go to jail if i fail to appear on a subpoena for a domestic violence case, I am the victim in CA state

You could contact the local district attorney's office and make your concerns known to the prosecutor who is assigned to the case.

I am not licensed in California, but in Illinois a witness/victim would not go to jail in a domestic violence case. However, the police officers and (if there was a hospital visit) nurses; doctors could testify. There is a fundamental problem here and I do think you should talk to the States Attorney's office. How many times has this person abused you? How likely is it that they will repeat? Domestic Violence is a serious problem in the United States and often times the police have to step in even above the objection of the victim -- its not something they like to do, but you haven't told us what kind of violence is alleged -- a verbal argument; an assualt; a serious physical assualt; were there children involved?

Please do talk to the State's Attorney - many of them have counselors who can talk to victims about their rights and what can and can't happen in the long run. Good luck.

On the DV question, domestic violence is a public offense and you cannot "drop the charges." Only the DA can do that. The DA may be influenced by your reluctance to testify but ultimately it is the DA's decision, not yours. And yes, you can be forced to testify.

The Crawford V Crawford Supreme court decision narrowed what tetimony could be used. In the past the police officers could testify even if the alledged battered person refuse. Crawford narrowed that significantly and in most cases if the alledged battered refuses to testify then the police can not offer testimony that then becomes hearsay. There are some instances where the police can use phone records or if the police actually intervene in a physical altercation. But basically Crawford has kept the police from testifying when the alledged battered refuses or even does not appear in court. Now the cases have to be dismissed.

In the past then the court could threaten the alledged battered person with jail time if he/she refuses to testify. Now I heard that at the beginning of 2009, January 01 that the same court past down a decision where the court could not badger or threaten a person into testifying either with fine or jail time. Does anyone know what that decision was?

Like the above answer states, The Supreme Court in Crawford mandates the ability of the accused to cross examine in open court ANYONE who testifies against them. The 6th Amendment to the US Constitution explicitly requires this. A police officer may not admit hearsay ( i.e. state to the court what someone else said to them). Police have been caught lying to many times and this is a result.

It must be by direct testimony of the victim or witness. I would say the DA’s will make life hard for recanting victims.

Like the above answer states, The Supreme Court in Crawford mandates the ability of the accused to cross examine in open court ANYONE who testifies against them. The 6th Amendment to the US Constitution explicitly requires this. A police officer may not admit hearsay ( i.e. state to the court what someone else said to them). Police have been caught lying to many times and this is a result.

It must be by direct testimony of the victim or witness. I would say the DA’s will make life hard for recanting victims.