§
Subdivision 1.Acts constituting.
Whoever orally or in writing makes any of the following threats and thereby causes another against the other's will to do any act or forbear doing a lawful act is guilty of coercion and may be sentenced as provided in subdivision 2:
(1) a threat to unlawfully inflict bodily harm upon, or hold in confinement, the person threatened or another, when robbery or attempt to rob is not committed thereby; or
(2) a threat to unlawfully inflict damage to the property of the person threatened or another; or
(3) a threat to unlawfully injure a trade, business, profession, or calling; or
(4) a threat to expose a secret or deformity, publish a defamatory statement, or otherwise to expose any person to disgrace or ridicule; or
(5) a threat to make or cause to be made a criminal charge, whether true or false; provided, that a warning of the consequences of a future violation of law given in good faith by a peace officer or prosecuting attorney to any person shall not be deemed a threat for the purposes of this section; or
(6) a threat to commit a violation under section 617.261.
[See Note.]
§
Subd. 2.Sentence.
Whoever violates subdivision 1 may be sentenced as follows:
(1) to imprisonment for not more than 90 days or to payment of a fine of not more than $1,000, or both if neither the pecuniary gain received by the violator nor the loss suffered by the person threatened or another as a result of the threat exceeds $300, or the benefits received or harm sustained are not susceptible of pecuniary measurement; or
(2) to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both, if such pecuniary gain or loss is more than $300 but less than $2,500; or
(3) to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both, if such pecuniary gain or loss is $2,500, or more.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1969–2023 · leading case:
State v. Trong Kim Huynh, 519 N.W.2d 191 (Minn. 1994).
State v. Trong Kim Huynh, 519 N.W.2d 191 (Minn. 1994).
· cites it 8× “Defendant Huynh was convicted of five counts of coercion under Minn.Stat. § 609.27, subd. 1(1) (1992) [1] and one count of racketeering under Minn.”
Am. Comput. Trust Leasing v. Jack Farrell Implement Co., 763 F. Supp. 1473 (D. Minnesota 1991).
· cites it 4× “§ 1343 ) in connection with representations allegedly made to Boerboom and Farrell about their computer systems; (2) IH’s contract with ADP and specifically ADP’s payment of royalties to IH; and (3) the alleged deactivation of software which Boerboom and Farrell claim violates…”
State v. Trong Kim Huynh, 504 N.W.2d 477 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 6× “A jury convicted Trong Kim Huynh (Huynh) of five counts of coercion in violation of Minn.Stat. § 609.27, subds. *480 1(2), 2(2) (1990) and one count of racketeering in violation of Minn.”
State v. Jumping Eagle, 620 N.W.2d 42 (Minn. 2000).
· cites it 2× “Garcia’s plea petition made no mention of the conditional-release term, nor was it mentioned in any hearings on his case before or at the time of sentencing.”
United States v. Nardello, 393 U.S. 286 (1969).
“§ 21-529 (1964); Minnesota calls it coercion, Minn. Stat. § 609.27 (1967); and Wisconsin believes that it should be classified under threats, Wis.”
Li v. New Asia Chinese Restaurant Wan Da Inc (D. Minnesota 2023).
· cites it 8× “See Minn. Stat. § 609.27 , subdiv. 1(3). However, criminal statutes do not “give rise to a civil cause of action unless the statute expressly or by clear implication so provides.”
Clancy v. Vacationaire Estates, Inc. (D. Minnesota 2019).
· cites it 2× “” Minn. Stat. § 609.27 . Racketeering also includes violations of the Hobbs Act, which prohibits extortion.”
Hillmeyer v. Watz, 415 N.W.2d 89 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 4× “We find that the language used in the second letter, coupled with the misstatement, comes uncomfortably close to violating Minn.Stat. § 609.27 subd. 1(5) (1986). 1 The attorney was a trained professional dealing with an unrepresented person; this created a significant disparity…”
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.