Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

tortappealzoning

Related Cases

Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255, 112 S.Ct. 1881, 119 L.Ed.2d 57, 60 USLW 4411

Facts

Petitioner Evans, an elected member of the DeKalb County Board of Commissioners, was involved in a federal investigation into public corruption. An FBI agent, posing as a real estate developer, engaged Evans in discussions about rezoning property and provided him with $7,000 in cash, which Evans failed to report on his campaign financing disclosure form and federal income tax return. Evans was charged with extortion under the Hobbs Act and failure to report income, and he was convicted by a jury.

Petitioner was an elected member of the Board of Commissioners of DeKalb County, Georgia. During the period between March 1985 and October 1986, as part of an effort by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to investigate allegations of public corruption in the Atlanta area, particularly in the area of rezonings of property, an FBI agent posing as a real estate developer talked on the telephone and met with petitioner on a number of occasions.

Issue

Whether an affirmative act of inducement by a public official, such as a demand, is an element of the offense of extortion 'under color of official right' prohibited by the Hobbs Act.

We granted certiorari, 500 U.S. 951, 111 S.Ct. 2256, 114 L.Ed.2d 709 (1991) , to resolve a conflict in the Circuits over the question whether an affirmative act of inducement by a public official, such as a demand, is an element of the offense of extortion 'under color of official right' prohibited by the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951.

Rule

The Hobbs Act defines extortion as the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right, without requiring a demand or request by the public official.

The term 'extortion' means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.

Analysis

The Court analyzed the statutory language of the Hobbs Act and its alignment with common-law definitions of extortion. It concluded that the absence of a requirement for an affirmative act of inducement, such as a demand, was consistent with the common-law understanding of extortion. The Court emphasized that the mere acceptance of a bribe by a public official, knowing it was in exchange for official acts, suffices for a conviction under the Hobbs Act.

The majority view is consistent with the common-law definition of extortion, which we believe Congress intended to adopt, we endorse that position.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, holding that an affirmative act of inducement is not required for a conviction of extortion under the Hobbs Act.

We hold today that the Government need only show that a public official has obtained a payment to which he was not entitled, knowing that the payment was made in return for official acts.

Who won?

The United States prevailed in the case, as the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Evans, affirming that the acceptance of a bribe without a demand constitutes extortion under the Hobbs Act.

The Court of Appeals held, however, that 'passive acceptance of a benefit by a public official is sufficient to form the basis of a Hobbs Act violation if the official knows that he is being offered the payment in exchange for a specific requested exercise of his official power.'

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Mitchell v. United States, 314 A.3d 1144

Franko v. Mitchell, 158 Ariz. 391, 762 P.2d 1345

Ezold v. Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-Cohen, 983 F.2d 509, 60 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 849, 61 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1000, 60 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 41,921, 61 USLW 2398

Wyly v. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, 12 N.Y.3d 400, 908 N.E.2d 888, 880 N.Y.S.2d 898, 2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 03628

In re Marriage of Hinds, 205 Cal.App.3d 1398, 253 Cal.Rptr. 170