Extortion is not dependent on the seriousness or significance of the compelled act.

In People v Harris, __ Mich __ (# 146212, 10/9/2014) the defendant was convicted of extortion after he had agreed to pay another person $400 to fix the transmission on defendant’s truck. This person began working on the truck, but stopped when it began to rain. Upset by his refusal to work in the rain, defendant went into his house and returned with a gun, and said that he would “silence him” unless he resumed working on the truck or returned a portion of defendant’s down payment for the work. The person refused, defendant returned home; the officers arrived and found defendant in the driveway carrying a rifle.

 

Under the plain language of the extortion statute, MCL 750.213, extortion occurs when a defendant maliciously threatens to injure another person with the intent to compel that person to do any act against his or her will, without regard to the seriousness or significance of the compelled act, overruling People v Fobb, 145 Mich App 786 (1985), and People v Hubbard (After Remand), 217 Mich App 459 (1996), to the extent that those decisions required that the act or omission compelled by the defendant be of serious consequence to the victim.  Under the plain language of the extortion statute, the crime of extortion is complete when a defendant (1) either orally or by a written or printed communication, maliciously threatens (2) to accuse another of any crime or offense, or to injure the person or property or mother, father, spouse or child of another (3) with the intent to extort money or any pecuniary advantage whatever, or with the intent to compel the person threatened to do or refrain from doing any act against his or her will. The Court of Appeals decisions in Fobb and Hubbard, which held that the act demanded of the victim must have been of serious consequence to the victim in order to convict a defendant of extortion, are contrary to the plain language of the statute.