 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Pauling9/17/2001
A statute that defines the word 'threat' to include the communication of information that is not inherently wrong or unlawful sweeps too broadly to withstand constitutional challenge. Washington's extortion statute is overbroad because it is not limited to wrongful threats and does not include any defenses that would limit its reach.
Thus, it substantially burdens a wide range of protected speech. Therefore, we are compelled to declare the statute invalid and reverse the conviction in this case.
FACTS
Molotov Pauling and his girl friend Jane Doe began a relationship in Washington and moved to Miami, Florida where they lived together for several months in 1998. In August 1998 Jane Doe terminated the relationship and returned to Washington. She left behind sexually explicit photographs of herself. Pauling sent copies of the photographs to Jane Doe's parents and claimed to have also sent them to her family, friends, and employers.
Pauling said that Jane Doe owed him money and that three months after she returned to Washington he obtained a default judgment against her in small claims court in Florida in the amount of $5,000. Sometime thereafter, Pauling returned to Washington and filed his Florida default judgment in a Snohomish County district court.
In February of 1999, Pauling sent Jane Doe a letter stating that the sooner she paid the debt the sooner she would be 'free of this.' Pauling's letter indicated that the photographs had been displayed on the Internet and he threatened to put Jane Doe's address on the Internet so her fans could contact her in person. Jane Doe's neighbors received letters purportedly from her that introduced her as a porn star, included copies of the photographs, and listed an Internet address. The letters were sent by Pauling. In June of 1999, Pauling sent Jane Doe another letter demanding payment of the debt. He stated that if she paid the debt he would be out of her life and that he hoped it wouldn't be necessary for him to let her neighbors know what kind of a person she was.
At a bench trial the court convicted Pauling on two of three accounts of extortion in the second degree. This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
Pauling claims his conviction for extortion in the second degree should be overturned because the extortion statute is unconstitutionally overbroad. A statute is overbroad when it infringes upon constitutionally protected speech. Ordinarily a defendant may not challenge a statute as unconstitutional unless the defendant's conduct is within the range of constitutionally protected acts. However, a defendant may challenge a statute for overbreadth even if the defendant's own conduct was not protected because prior restraints on freedom of speech pose a greater harm to society than the possibility that some unprotected speech will not be punished.
Under an overbreadth analysis, criminal laws are invalid if they prohibit a substantial amount of protected conduct, despite the fact that they may also have legitimate applications. However, we will not overturn statutes that regulate behavior rather than pure speech, unless the overbreadth is real and substantial in relation to the ordinance's plainly legitimate sweep. Unfortunately, Washington's extortion statute prohibits a substantial amount of protected conduct and is overbroad.
Pauling was convicted of extortion in the second degree under RCW 9A.56.130. That statute provides in part:
(1) A person is guilty of extortion in the second degree if he commits extortion by means of a threat as defined in RCW 9A.04.110(25)(d) through(j).
RCW 9A.56.110 defi
Page 1 2 3 4 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|