People v. Fox

California Court of Appeal Feb 4, 1958 No. Crim. 2796Published

Before: Peek

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's conviction for extortion, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict and that any trial errors regarding joinder, cross-examination, or jury instructions were not prejudicial.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for extortion under Penal Code section 523.
Whether the joinder of extortion and assault charges constituted prejudicial error.
Whether the trial court improperly limited the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses.
Whether the trial court's jury instruction regarding individual opinions constituted reversible error.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is not necessary that a threat should be apparent from the face of the letter, nor even necessary that it should be implied therefrom. The statute says that if the language used is adapted to imply a threat, then the writing is sufficient.”

“it is the rule that the truth or falsity of the charge is wholly immaterial.”

PEEK, J.

By an indictment Frederick M. Fox and his wife, Susan, were charged in Count I thereof with the crime of violating section 523 of the Penal Code, sending a threatening letter with the intent to extort money from one John Graffigna by threatening to expose him to disgrace and threat

[428]

ening the exposure of secrets affecting him. In Count II of the indictment Frederick alone was charged with a violation of section 217 of the Penal Code in that he assaulted Graffigna with the intent to commit murder. A motion to set aside the indictment on the grounds of insufficiency of the evidence, as well as a motion for separate trials, was denied. The case then proceeded to trial before a jury which returned verdicts finding both defendants guilty as charged in Count I, and the defendant Frederick not guilty as charged in Count II. Probation was denied, as was defendants’ motion for a new trial. Thereafter a letter was filed by Frederick in which he stated, “I wish to appeal my case.” Nothing was filed on behalf of Susan, nor did she herself take any further action. However the brief filed by Frederick purports to be on behalf of both defendants. Under such circumstances it would appear that the purported appeal by Susan must be dismissed.

Section 523 of the Penal Code provides:

“Every person who, with intent to extort any money or other property from another, sends or delivers to any person any letter or other writing, whether subscribed or not, expressing or implying, or adapted to imply, any threat such as is specified in Section 519, is punishable in the same manner as if such money or property were actually obtained by means of such threat. ’ ’

The portion of section 519 pertinent to the charge contained in Count I provides:

“Fear, such as will constitute extortion, may be induced by a threat, either:

“3. To expose, or to impute to him, or them . . . disgrace . . .

“4. To expose any secret affecting him or them.”

Thus to constitute a crime and sustain a conviction under Count I, it was necessary for the state to prove that defendants, with the intent to extort money through fear, sent a letter to John Graffigna which contained either a direct or implied threat, or was adapted to imply a threat, to expose some secret affecting him and to expose him to disgrace. The crime so defined by statute is complete when the letter is delivered to someone to be forwarded or posted. (Pen. Code, § 660.)

People v. Fox

AI Brief

PEEK, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief