N.M. Stat. » Chapter 30 — Criminal Offenses
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 30-16-9 (2026)

Extortion

✓ laws through the 2025 session (retrieved May 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Extortion consists of the communication or transmission of any threat to another by any means whatsoever with intent thereby to wrongfully obtain anything of value or to wrongfully compell [compel] the person threatened to do or refrain from doing any act against his will.

Any of the following acts shall be sufficient to constitute a threat under this section:

A. a threat to do an unlawful injury to the person or property of the person threatened or of another;

B. a threat to accuse the person threatened, or another, of any crime;

C. a threat to expose, or impute to the person threatened, or another, any deformity or disgrace;

D. a threat to expose any secret affecting the person threatened, or another; or

E. a threat to kidnap the person threatened or another.

Whoever commits extortion is guilty of a third degree felony.

History: 1953 Comp., § 40A-16-8, enacted by Laws 1963, ch. 303, § 16-8. ANNOTATIONS

Bracketed material. — The bracketed material was inserted by the compiler and is not part of the law.

Language of section does not require showing of consented-to taking. State v. Barber, 1979-NMCA-137, 93 N.M. 782, 606 P.2d 192, cert. denied, 94 N.M. 628, 614 P.2d 545.

Extortion is completed crime when defendant's threat is communicated to the victim with the requisite statutory intent. State v. Barber, 1979-NMCA-137, 93 N.M. 782, 606 P.2d 192, cert. denied, 94 N.M. 628, 614 P.2d 545; State v. Wheeler, 1980-NMCA-185, 95 N.M. 378, 622 P.2d 283.

"Threats" included in section. — This section includes both written and oral threats and also includes actions constituting threats. State v. Barber, 1979-NMCA-137, 93 N.M. 782, 606 P.2d 192, cert. denied, 94 N.M. 628, 614 P.2d 545.

Allegation of nature of threat. — Indictment under Laws 1853-1854, p. 94 (former 40- 46-1, 1953 Comp.) was insufficient where it simply charged that defendant threatened another, without alleging that such threat was to injure the person or property of another. State v. Strickland, 1916-NMSC-008, 21 N.M. 411, 155 P. 719.

Threat of injury is extortion. — Where defendant was given a psychological evaluation; defendant asked to see the evaluation report and became angry upon reading the report; subsequently, defendant asked again for a copy of the report; the custodian of the report refused to give defendant a copy of the report because of defendant’s mental state; defendant wrote letters to the custodian in which defendant threatened to harm the custodian if the custodian did not give defendant a copy of the report; and defendant has a right to receive a copy of the report, defendant was guilty of extortion. Rael v. Sullivan, 918 F.2d 874 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 928, 111 S. Ct. 1328, 113 L. Ed. 2d 260 (1991).

"Unlawful injury" as breach of contract is question for legislature. — Whether "unlawful injury" within the meaning of Subsection A encompasses a mere breach of contract is a question which the legislature may wish to clarify. State v. Ashley, 1989- NMCA-018, 108 N.M. 343, 772 P.2d 377, cert. denied, 108 N.M. 433, 773 P.2d 1240.

Phrase "to wrongfully compel" refers to the manner in which the defendant compels an act, rather than the legitimacy of the defendant's objective. Rael v. Sullivan, 918 F.2d 874 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 928, 111 S. Ct. 1328, 113 L. Ed. 2d 260 (1991).

Wrongfully compelling an act. — A bank's policy of requiring execution of a forgery affidavit and prosecution of an alleged forgery as a condition precedent to reimbursement of a customer's account did not constitute extortion under this section. Sunwest Bank v. Deskalos, 1995-NMCA-100, 120 N.M. 637, 904 P.2d 1062.

Defendant's threat to close victim's health club unless victim gave defendant money to help him buy the building in which the club was operated was a threat of "unlawful injury" within the meaning of Subsection A because the act threatened was a tort. State v. Ashley, 1989-NMCA-018, 108 N.M. 343, 772 P.2d 377, cert. denied, 108 N.M. 433, 773 P.2d 1240.

Law reviews. — For comment on Landavazo v. Credit Bureau, 72 N.M. 456, 384 P.2d 891 (1963), see 4 Nat. Resources J. 584 (1964).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 31A Am. Jur. 2d Extortion, Blackmail and Threats §§ 1 to 6.

Extortion predicated upon statements or intimations regarding criminal liability in connection with attempt to collect or settle a claim which defendant believed to be valid, 135 A.L.R. 728.

Validity and construction of terroristic threat statutes, 45 A.L.R.4th 949.

Injury to reputation or mental well-being as within penal extortion statutes requiring threat of "injury to the person," 87 A.L.R.5th 715.

35 C.J.S. Extortion §§ 1 to 6; 86 C.J.S. Threats and Unlawful Communications §§ 2 to 6.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1979–2024 · leading case: State v. Ashley, 772 P.2d 377 (N.M. Ct. App. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Ashley, 772 P.2d 377 (N.M. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 12× “NMSA 1978, § 30-16-9 (Repl.Pamp. 1984). The state relies on subsection A, contending that defendant threatened an unlawful injury to the property of DeOurso.”
State v. Barber, 606 P.2d 192 (N.M. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 6× “Defendant was convicted on charges of extortion, in violation of § 30-16-9, N.M. S.A. 1978, and battery, in violation of § 30-3-4, N.”
Sunwest Bank of Albuquerque, N.A. v. Daskalos, 904 P.2d 1062 (N.M. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 6× “In a non-jury trial, the trial court awarded punitive damages on the basis that Sunwest’s policy of requiring victims of forgery to agree to assist in the criminal prosecution of the forger before it would reimburse the customer constituted extortion under NMSA 1978, Section…”
State v. Wheeler, 622 P.2d 283 (N.M. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 3× “For the purposes of this opinion, we assume that the trial court was correct in holding that Ms.”
State v. Bice, No. A-1-CA-34978 (N.M. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2019). · cites it 19× “A jury convicted him 2 of three counts of extortion pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 30-16-9 (1963), and 3 two counts of bribery of a witness pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 30-24-3.”
State v. Bice, No. A-1-CA-34978 (N.M. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2019). · cites it 19× “A jury convicted him of three counts of extortion pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 30-16-9 (1963), and two counts of bribery of a witness pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 30-24-3.”
State v. Scott (N.M. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “1 Defendant was initially charged as well with one count of racketeering, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-42-4(C) (2015); one count of extortion, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-16-9 (1963); and two counts of receiving or transferring a stolen motor vehicle, contrary to NMSA…”
Hoag v. Aswad, No. A-1-CA-40189 (N.M. Ct. App. June 17, 2024). · cites it 2× “This Court addressed the statutory requirements for extortion under NMSA 1978, Section 30-16-9 (1963)—namely the “wrongful intent” requirement therein—and reversed the district court’s punitive damages award only because “there were no findings of fact by the [district] court of…”
Avangrid, Inc. v. Sec. Limits, Inc., 570 P.3d 179 (N.M. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “Avangrid alleges that this conduct fits the definition of extortion in New Mexico criminal law, see NMSA 1978, § 30-16-9 (1963). The complaint describes the August 4 email as “a threat to provide negative information about Avangrid to the PRC considering Avangrid’s merger with…”
State v. Scott, 528 P.3d 728 (N.M. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “1Defendant was initially charged as well with one count of racketeering, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-42-4(C) (2015); one count of extortion, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-16-9 (1963); and two counts of receiving or transferring a stolen motor vehicle, contrary to NMSA…”
State v. Rauch, No. 32,837 (N.M. Feb. 7, 2013). · cites it 2× “4 {29} Defendant asserts that there was insufficient evidence to support his extortion 5 conviction.”
Maxwell v. Wilson, 766 P.2d 909 (N.M. 1988). · cites it 3× “as provided in Section 30-16-8 NMSA 1978; (8) receiving stolen property, as provided in Section 30-16-11 NMSA 1978; (9) bribery, as provided in Sections 30-24-1 through 30-24-3 NMSA 1978; (10) gambling, as provided in Sections 30-19-3, 30-19-13 and 30-19-15 NMSA 1978; (11)…”
Show all 14 citing cases →
N.M. Stat. § 30-16-9(A): 1 case
State v. Ashley, 772 P.2d 377 (N.M. Ct. App. 1989). “NMSA 1978, § 30-16-9 (Repl.Pamp. 1984). The state relies on subsection A, contending that defendant threatened an unlawful injury to the property of DeOurso.”
N.M. Stat. § 30-16-9(C): 2 cases
State v. Bice, No. A-1-CA-34978 (N.M. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2019). “A jury convicted him 2 of three counts of extortion pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 30-16-9 (1963), and 3 two counts of bribery of a witness pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 30-24-3.”
State v. Bice, No. A-1-CA-34978 (N.M. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2019). “A jury convicted him of three counts of extortion pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 30-16-9 (1963), and two counts of bribery of a witness pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 30-24-3.”
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.