## Facts

- Peter Greenspan complained to the Chapel Hill Police Department that he was receiving harassing telephone calls.
- Greenspan told police the calls had been traced to the Chapel Hill residence of Ali Mobarakeh.
- Police initially took no immediate action, but Greenspan continued to report the calls.
- Police later arranged a meeting with Greenspan, Mobarakeh, Mobarakeh’s brother, and a police lieutenant so Greenspan could identify the caller’s voice; Greenspan identified Mobarakeh.
- Greenspan told the officer he wanted to wait overnight before signing arrest warrants.
- The next day, Greenspan called Mobarakeh and stated he would not press charges if Mobarakeh paid him money; Mobarakeh refused.
- Mobarakeh recorded that conversation and provided the recording to police.
- Police instructed Mobarakeh to record a second call if Greenspan called again and to refuse any offer; Mobarakeh recorded the second call and turned it over to police.
- After these calls, Greenspan signed warrants for Mobarakeh’s arrest based on the harassing calls.
- Greenspan was arrested, indicted, and tried for extortion under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-118.4; recordings and transcripts were introduced at trial, and a jury convicted him. He appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Greenspan’s statement that he would refrain from pressing criminal charges in exchange for money constituted a “threat” under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-118.4.
2. Whether § 14-118.4 (extortion) was the proper statute to charge, given the existence of the older blackmail statute, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-118.
3. Whether the State failed to prove “wrongful intent” because Greenspan claimed he believed Mobarakeh was guilty and that he was entitled to compensation.
4. Whether the trial court erred in its instruction that seeking money in return for not obtaining arrest warrants is a “threat.”
5. Whether the trial court erred at sentencing by refusing to find certain statutory mitigating factors.

## Decision

- The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed Greenspan’s extortion conviction and sentence.
- The court held that offering to refrain from pressing criminal charges in exchange for money amounts to threatening criminal prosecution and fits the statutory meaning of a “threat” under § 14-118.4.
- The court rejected Greenspan’s argument that he should have been charged, if at all, under the blackmail statute, concluding that the later-enacted extortion statute superseded the older blackmail statute for the same conduct with a different penalty.
- The court held the alleged victim’s guilt is no defense to extortion and that a defendant’s belief he is entitled to the money sought does not negate wrongful intent when the demand is tied to threatened criminal process.
- The court found no reversible error in the challenged jury instruction; it was a correct statement of law, and any complaint was also weakened by lack of a properly preserved objection.
- The court upheld the sentencing ruling, concluding the trial court was not required to find additional mitigating factors where the supporting evidence was not so clear and unchallenged as to compel those findings.

## Legal Principles

- Extortion under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-118.4 includes seeking something of value by wrongfully threatening to accuse a person of a crime or to institute criminal proceedings.
- A demand for money coupled with a promise not to pursue arrest warrants or prosecution constitutes a threat of criminal prosecution within the statute.
- The threatened party’s actual guilt of the alleged offense is not a defense to extortion.
- It is not a defense that the defendant believed he was entitled to the money or was merely seeking compensation when the money is sought through threatened use of the criminal process.
- When a later statute covers the same conduct as an earlier statute but sets a different penalty, the later statute may supersede the earlier one for charging purposes.
- A trial court’s jury instruction that accurately states the law is not an improper expression of opinion; preservation rules govern review of alleged instructional error.
- Under North Carolina’s Fair Sentencing framework, a sentencing court need not find a mitigating factor unless the evidence supporting it is uncontradicted and so reliable that no reasonable contrary inference can be drawn.

## Conclusion

State v. Greenspan affirmed an extortion conviction where the defendant sought payment in exchange for not pressing criminal charges, holding that such a demand constitutes a statutory threat, that the extortion statute properly governed the conduct, that victim guilt and claimed entitlement do not defeat wrongful intent, and that no reversible error occurred in the jury charge or the refusal to find additional mitigating factors at sentencing.


State v. Greenspan, 374 S.E.2d 884 (1989)