A. A person commits theft by extortion by knowingly obtaining or seeking to obtain property or services by means of a threat to do in the future any of the following:
1. Cause physical injury to anyone by means of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument or cause death or serious physical injury to anyone.
2. Cause physical injury to anyone except as provided in paragraph 1 of this subsection.
3. Cause damage to property.
4. Engage in other conduct constituting an offense.
5. Accuse anyone of a crime or bring criminal charges against anyone.
6. Expose a secret or an asserted fact in a social media message as defined in section 16-901 or in any other manner, whether true or false, tending to subject anyone to hatred, contempt or ridicule or to impair the person's credit or business unless the threat is based on a plausible claim of right to the property or services obtained or sought to be obtained.
7. Take or withhold action as a public servant or cause a public servant to take or withhold action.
8. Cause anyone to part with any property.
9. Take or withhold action regarding an alleged claim of easement or other right of access to an adjoining property if both of the following occur:
(a) The claimant's property interest is the result of a tax lien purchase or foreclosure pursuant to title 42, chapter 18.
(b) The fair market value of the claimant's property is equal to or less than the amount paid by the claimant for the purchase of the tax lien or foreclosure, including taxes paid after the lien purchase and any costs and attorney fees paid in connection with the lien foreclosure. For the purposes of this subdivision, "fair market value" means the fair market value as defined in section 33-814, subsection A as of the date of the theft.
B. It is a defense to a prosecution under subsection A, paragraph 5, 6 or 7 of this section if a reasonable person would believe that the property or services were obtained or sought to be obtained by the threat of a reasonable accusation, exposure, lawsuit or other invocation of official action.
C. Theft by extortion is a class 4 felony, except that theft by extortion under subsection A, paragraph 1 of this section is a class 2 felony.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
27
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1972–2021 · leading case:
State v. Steiger, 781 P.2d 616 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).
State v. Steiger, 781 P.2d 616 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 51× “Steiger was charged with a criminal violation of A.R.S. § 13-1804, which is entitled “Theft by Extortion.”
State v. Garcia, 258 P.3d 195 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 24× “The State charged Garcia with two counts of theft by extortion as a class 2 felony: one for seeking to obtain property from the victim’s sister by means of a threat with a deadly weapon to the victim, and one for seeking to obtain property from the victim’s cousin by means of a…”
State v. Weinstein, 898 P.2d 513 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 13× “section 13-1804 unconstitutionally vague); see also Wurtz v.”
State v. Mendoza-tapia, 273 P.3d 676 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 6× “However, AR.S. § 13-1804(A)(1) does not require that the threat to use a dangerous instrument or deadly weapon be communicated to the person from whom the property is demanded.”
Donahoe v. Arpaio, 869 F. Supp. 2d 1020 (D. Ariz. 2012).
· cites it 3× “disclosure of various documents from Thomas; • the Board of Supervisors denied Thomas’ request for funding for special prosecutors; • Wilcox, Stapley, Wilson and others filed a bar complaint against Thomas; • all defendants conspired to do these things; • all defendants were “an…”
State v. Cookus, 563 P.2d 898 (Ariz. 1977).
· cites it 5× “Immunity was granted after the witness claimed his privilege against self-incrimination pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-1804 which reads, in part: “If a witness in any judicial or grand jury proceeding claims the privilege against self-incrimination but is required by the court to give…”
State v. Jeffers, 661 P.2d 1105 (Ariz. 1983).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 13-1804, now § 13-4064, explicitly provides that immunity is to be granted at the prosecuting attorney’s request and does not authorize the court to grant immunity on its own motion.”
Warfield v. Gardner, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1033 (D. Ariz. 2004).
· cites it 6× “The Defendants claim that Plaintiff has failed to allege that they “threatened anyone with anything, must less threatened to do something listed in [A.R.S. § 13-1804].” (Motion at 5.) However, as Plaintiff points out, the Complaint alleges that the Defendants demanded and forced…”
Anderson v. Coulter, 490 P.2d 856 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1972).
· cites it 20× “The questions involved in this special action are: First, whether the City of Phoenix may legally file a civil action in relation to allegedly pornographic matter and require the production thereof by a subpoena duces tecum in the face of a claimed Fifth Amendment right; and…”
State v. Buchanan, 518 P.2d 108 (Ariz. 1974).
· cites it 9× “We accepted jurisdiction of the special action to determine whether A.R.S. § 13-1804, the immunity statute, extended to requests by the defense for immunity from prosecution for a witness called to testify upon behalf of the defense.”
State v. Roberts, 642 P.2d 864 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 6× “§§ 13-1304 and 13-604, and extortion involving the use of a deadly weapon, in violation of A.R.S. §§ 13-1804 and 13-604. On the day set for trial, appellant notified his counsel that he would not be present for the first day of trial.”
Smith v. Superior Court, Pima Cnty., 495 P.2d 519 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1972).
· cites it 6× “) Petitioner filed a timely motion to quash the information filed in the criminal case upon the ground that A.R.S. § 13-1804, as amended, granted him immunity from prosecution.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1804(A) — 2 cases
State v. Steiger, 781 P.2d 616 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).
“Steiger was charged with a criminal violation of A.R.S. § 13-1804, which is entitled “Theft by Extortion.”
Warfield v. Gardner, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1033 (D. Ariz. 2004).
“The Defendants claim that Plaintiff has failed to allege that they “threatened anyone with anything, must less threatened to do something listed in [A.R.S. § 13-1804].” (Motion at 5.) However, as Plaintiff points out, the Complaint alleges that the Defendants demanded and forced…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1804(A)(1) — 3 cases
State v. Garcia, 258 P.3d 195 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
“The State charged Garcia with two counts of theft by extortion as a class 2 felony: one for seeking to obtain property from the victim’s sister by means of a threat with a deadly weapon to the victim, and one for seeking to obtain property from the victim’s cousin by means of a…”
State v. Mendoza-tapia, 273 P.3d 676 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
“However, AR.S. § 13-1804(A)(1) does not require that the threat to use a dangerous instrument or deadly weapon be communicated to the person from whom the property is demanded.”
State v. Roberts, 642 P.2d 864 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981).
“§§ 13-1304 and 13-604, and extortion involving the use of a deadly weapon, in violation of A.R.S. §§ 13-1804 and 13-604. On the day set for trial, appellant notified his counsel that he would not be present for the first day of trial.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1804(A)(2) — 2 cases
State v. Garcia, 258 P.3d 195 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
“The State charged Garcia with two counts of theft by extortion as a class 2 felony: one for seeking to obtain property from the victim’s sister by means of a threat with a deadly weapon to the victim, and one for seeking to obtain property from the victim’s cousin by means of a…”
State v. Mendoza-tapia, 273 P.3d 676 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
“However, AR.S. § 13-1804(A)(1) does not require that the threat to use a dangerous instrument or deadly weapon be communicated to the person from whom the property is demanded.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1804(A)(3) — 3 cases
Warfield v. Gardner, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1033 (D. Ariz. 2004).
“The Defendants claim that Plaintiff has failed to allege that they “threatened anyone with anything, must less threatened to do something listed in [A.R.S. § 13-1804].” (Motion at 5.) However, as Plaintiff points out, the Complaint alleges that the Defendants demanded and forced…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1804(A)(5) — 2 cases
Donahoe v. Arpaio, 869 F. Supp. 2d 1020 (D. Ariz. 2012).
“disclosure of various documents from Thomas; • the Board of Supervisors denied Thomas’ request for funding for special prosecutors; • Wilcox, Stapley, Wilson and others filed a bar complaint against Thomas; • all defendants conspired to do these things; • all defendants were “an…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1804(A)(6) — 2 cases
State v. Weinstein, 898 P.2d 513 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
“section 13-1804 unconstitutionally vague); see also Wurtz v.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1804(A)(8) — 3 cases
State v. Steiger, 781 P.2d 616 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).
“Steiger was charged with a criminal violation of A.R.S. § 13-1804, which is entitled “Theft by Extortion.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.