v. Knox, 2019 COA 152

On Nov. 26, 2014, Knox made contact with Diedrichs-Giffin's car, declined to summon police at the scene, and later sent a text proposing a one-time settlement and alluding to court if not settled.
Six days later Knox called 911 falsely reporting a recent hit-and-run and injuries; Arvada officers LeDoux and Smith responded and later discovered the incident had occurred days earlier and obtained Knox’s settlement text.
Knox was charged with criminal extortion, two counts of false reporting, and three counts of attempt to influence a public servant (one for statements to the dispatcher, Officer Smith, and Officer LeDoux); a jury convicted her on all counts.
On appeal Knox argued (1) police officers are not “public servants” under § 18-8-306 and (2) threatening litigation to cause economic harm is not criminal extortion because it is not an "unlawful act."
The court affirmed the three attempt-to-influence convictions (concluding police are public servants and the three statements were discrete volitional acts) and vacated the criminal extortion conviction (holding a mere threat to litigate is not an unlawful act for extortion).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether police officers are “public servants” under § 18-8-306	Police officers fall within the broad statutory definition of public servant and prior precedent treats officers as such	Police officers are distinct ("peace officers") and some statutes draw a deliberate distinction, implying they are not "public servants" for § 18-8-306	Statute is ambiguous but read in context and with precedent, police officers are public servants for § 18-8-306
Whether multiple convictions for attempt to influence different officials were multiplicitous	Each separate statement to dispatch, Officer Smith, and Officer LeDoux was a distinct attempt (separate times, locations, volitional acts)	All statements arose from a single continuous course of conduct (the 911 call) and should be one offense	Unit of prosecution is a discrete attempt (particular volitional act against a particular officer); separate acts separated in time/location justify multiple convictions
Whether threatening litigation to cause economic hardship constitutes criminal extortion	The text offering settlement and threatening court could coerce economic hardship and satisfy extortion if paired with a threat to use unlawful means or third-party action	A threat to litigate is a lawful remedy and, standing alone, is not an "unlawful act" required for extortion	Threat of litigation by itself is not an "unlawful act" for § 18-3-207; extortion conviction vacated

Quintano v. People, 105 P.3d 585 (Colo. 2005) (framework for unit of prosecution and multiplicity analysis)
People v. Sena, 395 P.3d 1148 (Colo. App. 2016) (treating police officers as public servants under § 18-8-306)
People v. McMinn, 412 P.3d 551 (Colo. App. 2013) (analysis of distinct volitional acts and unit of prosecution)
People v. Blue, 253 P.3d 1273 (Colo. App. 2011) (false reporting distinct from attempt to influence public servant)
United States v. Pendergraft, 297 F.3d 1198 (11th Cir. 2002) (threat to litigate generally not wrongful for extortion-like claims)
Deck v. Engineered Laminates, 349 F.3d 1253 (10th Cir. 2003) (similar conclusion that threats to sue are not per se wrongful)
Whimbush v. People, 869 P.2d 1245 (Colo. 1994) (holding that the accused must threaten an unlawful act for extortion)