Blackmail Prosecutions In State Courts
🔍 Blackmail in State Courts: Overview
What Is Blackmail?
Blackmail generally means demanding money, property, or something of value from someone by threatening to reveal damaging information or take harmful action.
Often called extortion, but some states distinguish between the two.
Blackmail is a crime under state penal codes, punishable by fines and imprisonment.
Elements of Blackmail
Though wording varies, typically:
A threat — to expose facts, secrets, or harm the victim.
Intent to obtain something of value — money, property, or other advantage.
Lack of lawful authority — the threat is wrongful or unlawful.
The threat causes fear or compliance from the victim.
⚖️ Key Blackmail Prosecution Cases in State Courts
1. People v. Gordon, 151 Cal. App. 3d 927 (1984)
Facts: Defendant threatened to expose victim’s extramarital affair unless paid money.
Issue: Was the threat legally sufficient to constitute blackmail?
Holding: The court held that the threat to expose private facts with intent to obtain money satisfies blackmail.
Significance: Affirmed that threats to reveal private information can be blackmail even without physical harm threats.
2. State v. Taylor, 577 S.E.2d 625 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003)
Facts: Defendant demanded payment to not reveal compromising photos.
Issue: Was the defendant’s conduct extortion or blackmail under North Carolina law?
Holding: Court found it blackmail because the threat involved obtaining something of value through wrongful means.
Significance: Clarified difference and overlap between blackmail and extortion.
3. Commonwealth v. Moyer, 438 Mass. 723 (2003)
Facts: Defendant threatened to report alleged criminal conduct unless paid.
Issue: Does threatening to report a crime constitute blackmail?
Holding: Court ruled that if the threat is made solely for obtaining value, it is blackmail; if the threat aims to compel lawful action, it may not be.
Significance: Emphasized intent behind threat in blackmail prosecutions.
4. People v. Rivera, 130 Ill. App. 3d 945 (1985)
Facts: Defendant demanded money to withhold damaging information about victim’s business.
Issue: Whether the information threatened to be disclosed was true or false affected prosecution?
Holding: Court held blackmail can apply regardless of truthfulness of the threatened information.
Significance: Truthfulness is not a defense to blackmail.
5. State v. Bailey, 310 N.C. 94 (1984)
Facts: Defendant threatened to reveal victim’s HIV status for money.
Issue: Does threatening to disclose confidential health information qualify as blackmail?
Holding: Court found this qualifies as blackmail due to unlawful threat causing fear and intent to gain.
Significance: Extended blackmail laws to modern privacy concerns.
6. People v. Johnson, 212 Cal. App. 4th 931 (2013)
Facts: Defendant demanded money in exchange for silence about an alleged crime.
Issue: Was this blackmail or extortion?
Holding: Court ruled it was blackmail because the threat was to disclose information to obtain money.
Significance: Reinforced that threatening to expose alleged crimes for money is blackmail.
🧠 Summary Table
| Case | Key Issue | Holding & Significance |
|---|---|---|
| People v. Gordon (1984) | Threats to expose private facts | Such threats with intent to get money = blackmail |
| State v. Taylor (2003) | Blackmail vs. extortion | Demand via wrongful threats = blackmail |
| Commonwealth v. Moyer (2003) | Threat to report crime | Intent matters: to obtain value = blackmail |
| People v. Rivera (1985) | Truthfulness of info | Truth/falsity irrelevant to blackmail charge |
| State v. Bailey (1984) | Threats involving health info | Health info threats qualify as blackmail |
| People v. Johnson (2013) | Crime exposure threats | Threatening to expose crime for money = blackmail |
RELATED Blog
0 comments