## Facts

- John Andrew Sturm borrowed $110,000 from Worcester County Institution for Savings (WCIS) to help purchase an Aero Commander aircraft; the loan was secured by the aircraft and related collateral, including the aircraft’s logbooks.
- Aircraft logbooks recorded maintenance history and were necessary for commercial use; without them, the aircraft’s value was substantially reduced.
- After Sturm fell behind on payments, WCIS repossessed the aircraft in August 1986 but did not obtain the logbooks during repossession.
- WCIS later auctioned the aircraft but did not receive what it considered a fair price, attributing the low valuation to the missing logbooks.
- A WCIS officer asked Sturm to return the logbooks; Sturm denied having them but stated he would return them only in exchange for money, allegedly demanding $20,000.
- WCIS contacted the FBI; bank officers and undercover FBI agents negotiated with Sturm and arranged a meeting.
- In the undercover operation, Sturm produced the logbooks in exchange for the promised payment and was arrested.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for attempted Hobbs Act extortion under 18 U.S.C. § 1951 and attempted bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a).
2. Whether the jury instructions correctly explained the Hobbs Act “wrongful” element and the limits of any claim-of-right theory, and properly stated the required intent.
3. Whether any instructional error required vacatur and a new trial.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the denial of Sturm’s motion for judgment of acquittal, holding the evidence permitted a rational jury to find attempted extortion and attempted bank robbery.
- The court vacated both convictions and remanded for a new trial because the jury instructions inadequately addressed “wrongful” conduct and the limited role of a claim-of-right theory in extortion based on fear of economic harm.

## Legal Principles

- On review of a denial of acquittal, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the government.
- Hobbs Act extortion requires proof that the defendant sought to obtain property with consent induced by wrongful use of force, violence, or fear, including fear of economic harm.
- In economic-fear extortion, “wrongful” focuses on whether the defendant had a lawful claim to the property sought and whether fear was used to extract property to which the defendant was not entitled.
- A claim-of-right theory is narrow and does not immunize demands for new payments or the use of coercive economic pressure to obtain money not lawfully owed.
- Jury instructions must clearly distinguish between legitimate debt collection or assertion of rights and extortionate exploitation of fear of economic loss; failure to do so can require a new trial even where the evidence is sufficient.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit held that the government’s evidence could support findings of attempted Hobbs Act extortion and attempted bank robbery based on Sturm’s demand for payment to return valuable aircraft logbooks, but it vacated the convictions because the jury was not properly instructed on the “wrongful” element and the constrained scope of any claim-of-right theory in an economic-fear extortion case.


United States v. Sturm, 870 F.2d 769 (1st Cir. 1989)