People v. FobbPeople v. Fobb
On April 17, 1984, defendant was convicted by a jury of extortion,
On November 17, 1983, defendant teleрhoned Trudy Hallisy, the property manager for Charles Lane Apartments in Pontiac, and complained bitterly that Hallisy had been spreading lies about defendant. Ms. Hallisy hung up on defendant and defendant telephoned a second time, this time asserting that defendant was going to sue Ms. Hallisy for $21,000. Again Hallisy hung up. Thereafter, Hаllisy locked the office door and went to the rest room area in the office to dry her hair which was still wet from a recent haircut. As she was doing so, she heard the front door crack and break open. Ms. Hallisy then found herself being charged by defendant. Defendant attacked Hallisy first by choking her and then by beating hеr with Hallisy’s hairdryer. During this attack, defendant ordered Hallisy to draft and sign a note stating that Hallisy had reported lies about defendant. Hallisy complied with defendant’s dirеctions because of the beating she was receiving from defendant.
The evidence in this case fully supports the conviction for assault with intent to do grеat bodily harm less than murder and that conviction is affirmed.
"Any person who shall, either orally or by a written or printed communication, maliciously threaten to аccuse another of any crime or offense, or shall orally or by any written or printed communication maliciously threaten any injury to the person or property or mother, father, husband, wife or child of another with intent thereby to extort money or any pecuniary advantage whatever, or with intent to compel the person so threatened to do or refrain from doing any act against his will, shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not more than twenty years or by a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars.”
This Court decided the case of
People v Krist,
The Court said at 676:
"Prosecutions for statutory extortion have generally been characterized by threats of future harm if the victim does not comply with the extortionist’s wishes. See
People v Percin, supra
[
1. An oral or written communication maliciously encompassing a threat.
2. The threat must be to:
a. Accuse the person threatened of a crime or offense, the truth of such accusation being immaterial; or
b. Injure the person or property of the person thrеatened; or
c. Injure the mother, father, husband, wife or child of the person threatened.
3. The threat must be:
a. With intent to extort money or to obtain a pecuniary advantage to the threatener; or
b. To compel the person threatened to do, or refrain from doing, an act against his or her will.
The malice required by thе statute does not contemplate a feeling of ill will towards the person threatened, but is satisfied by the wilful doing of an act with an illegal intent.
People v Whittemore,
In the present сase the note was obtained against the victim’s will. It gave the defendant no apparent pecuniary advantage, nor did the note seem to havе any rationale or importance. It
On thе other hand, the inclusion of the extortion count doubled the penalty which could be imposed.
The defendant raises the objection of double jeopardy in that evidence supporting both the assault and the extortion emanated from the same transaction.
In
People v Carter,
Assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder is certainly a different crime than extortion. They share no common elements. There was, accordingly, no double jeopardy question in connection with this conviction.
Thе difficulty that we find with the defendant’s extortion conviction is that the act required of the victim was minor with no serious consequences to the victim. The note the victim was forced to write was erratic, quixotic and was not used to the victim’s detriment or defendant’s advantage.
The Legislature did not intend punishment for every minor threat. There is a paucity of law on the subject. 86 CJS, Threats and Unlawful Communications, § 4, p 795, cites an old Tennessee case, People v Morgan, 50 Tenn 262 (1871), as authority for this point. That сase, in spite of its vintage, is well reasoned. In construing the statute then in existence, the court said:
"The section of the Code under which this indictment
The Court then went on to say:
"The statute is a highly penal one, and we deem it proper to say, was not intended to apply to every idle threat, but such as are evidence of serious purposе to do the injury threatened, and that, some serious injury, such as is alleged in this indictment. Nor would it apply to a threat to compel a man to do any minor aсt, of no great injury, or serious importance; but only such serious threats of injury as should be used to compel a party to do some act materially and sеriously affecting his interest — as is shown by the enumerated cases — to extort money, property or pecuniary advantage.” 50 Tenn 265.
In 1961 in the case of
Furlotte v State,
209 Tenn 122;
It is noted that Michigan cases brought undеr the "against his will” section of the extortion statutes have been for serious demands.
People v Whittemore,
We conclude that the demand by the defendant that the victim execute a useless note was not an offense such as was contemplated by the extortion statute as no pecuniary advantage was obtained nor wаs the act demanded of such consequence or seriousness as to apply that statute. The principal purpose of the addition of this count was sentence enhancement.
The conviction and sentence for assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder is affirmed. The conviction and sentence for extortion is reversed.
Notes
Blockburger v United States,