Husband and Wife’s Extra-Marital Extortion Conviction Affirmed

A husband and wife’s conviction for extorting extra-marital lovers for money is affirmed because the circuit court deemed the state's theft-by-coercion law as not being overly broad or vague 

Roberts v. Anderson, 2016 BL 208411, 5th Cir., No. 13-50587, 6/29/16.

   The Fifth Circuit found that a theft-by-coercion law was not overly broad or vague on its face or in its application in a husband and wife extortion case. The husband, after discovering his wife’s extra-marital affairs, began to extort his wife’s lovers. Things became even more interesting when the wife began joining her husband in the extortion.  Four men who were lovers of the wife were extorted out of money, being coerced to pay into a personal charity ran by the husband that was directed to him personally.

   The court reaffirmed the state district court’s verdict, finding that the statute for theft was appropriately applied. The circuit court found that the lower court’s analysis was solid enough to trigger the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s (AEDPA) deference towards state court decisions. Under the act, federal courts can only second-guess state decisions on habeas review if the decision went against or involved an unreasonable application of federal statute. By failing to meet this burden, the husband and wife duo were unable to have the state statute reviewed because the court found it to be not overly broad or vague.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Roberts_v_Anderson_No_13_50587_2016_BL_208411_5th_Cir_June_29_201.

Shoplifting Does Not Become Burglary Merely By Remaining On Premises

Ordinary retail theft will not be elevated to a count of burglary merely by remaining on the premises, if the premises is still open to the public.

 

People v. Bradford, 2016 BL 90900, Ill., No. 118674, 3/24/16

     The Illinois Supreme Court ruled that a defendant who commits theft during regular business hours, remains only in areas open to the public, and leaves before the store closes, cannot be convicted of burglary merely for staying on the premises after the theft.

     The court ruled that a person commits 'burglary by remaining in the public place only where he exceeds his physical authority to be on the premises.' One 'who enters a building lawfully, shoplifts merchandise within areas which are open to the public, then leaves during business hours, is guilty of ordinary retail theft.'

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/People_v_Bradford_2016_IL_118674_Court_Opinion?1462392535