## Facts

- Henry Fichtner (manager) and Joseph McGuinness (assistant manager) worked at a supermarket in Nassau County, New York.
- A customer, Smith, left the store without paying for a 53-cent jar of coffee concealed in his pocket; he had paid for other items totaling about $12.
- The defendants stopped Smith and required him to return to the store.
- Smith testified that defendants threatened to call police and have him arrested for petit larceny and stated there would be publicity in newspapers and on the radio.
- Defendants conditioned not contacting police on Smith paying $75 and signing a written statement admitting prior thefts from the store.
- Smith admitted stealing the coffee and a prior 65-cent roll of bologna, but denied stealing goods totaling $75.
- Smith signed a statement admitting thefts totaling $50, paid $25 that night, and agreed to pay the remainder in weekly installments.
- The $25 was credited to company funds; defendants did not personally keep the money.
- Defendants testified they believed Smith had stolen from the store over time (and that Smith voluntarily admitted larger thefts and signed voluntarily).

## Issues

1. Whether obtaining money by threatening to accuse a person of a crime and expose the person to public disgrace constitutes extortion when the person may have committed the theft alleged.
2. Whether it is a defense to extortion that the defendants acted on behalf of an employer and did not personally receive the money.
3. Whether a good-faith belief that the victim owed restitution negates the “wrongful use of fear” element of extortion.

## Decision

- The jury convicted both defendants on two counts of extortion under New York Penal Law §§ 850–851.
- The Appellate Division affirmed, holding the statutory elements were satisfied by the defendants’ threats and resulting payment.
- The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment without a reported opinion.

## Legal Principles

- Extortion is obtaining property with the victim’s consent induced by a wrongful use of fear.
- Statutory “fear” includes threats to accuse the victim of a crime and threats to expose the victim to disgrace.
- A good-faith belief that the victim committed a theft, or that the victim owes restitution, does not justify obtaining payment through threats of criminal accusation or public humiliation.
- Extortion does not require that the defendant personally profit; obtaining money for an employer through prohibited threats satisfies the offense.
- When evidence supports that consent to pay was induced by threats of arrest and public exposure, the issue is for the jury, and a conviction may be sustained on sufficiency review.

## Conclusion

The court upheld extortion convictions where store managers used threats of arrest and public disgrace to compel a customer to pay money and sign admissions of prior thefts, ruling that neither the customer’s alleged wrongdoing nor the defendants’ good-faith restitution motive or lack of personal gain defeats liability when payment is obtained through statutorily prohibited threats.


People v. Fichtner, 305 N.Y. 864, 114 N.E.2d 212 (N.Y. 1953)