Supreme Court of the United States
Evans v. United States
May 26, 1992504 U.S. 255
Summary
The Court affirmed Evans's conviction, holding that Hobbs Act extortion under color of official right does not require an affirmative act of inducement by the public official. The Government must show that the official obtained a payment to which he was not entitled, knowing it was made in return for official acts; performance of those acts is unnecessary. The Court also rejected the contention that common-law extortion required a false pretense of entitlement to payment. Stevens wrote the Court's opinion, joined throughout by White, Blackmun, and Souter, with O'Connor joining Parts I and II and Kennedy joining Part III. O'Connor separately concurred in part and in the judgment, declining to address the false-pretense issue because the parties had not presented it. Kennedy separately concurred in part and in the judgment, emphasizing that inducement and a corrupt quid pro quo are required, but may be implicit. Thomas dissented, joined by Rehnquist and Scalia, arguing that the Court departed from common-law extortion, disregarded the statutory inducement requirement, and insufficiently respected lenity and federalism.
Holding
- Whether an affirmative act of inducement is an element of Hobbs Act extortion under color of official right.. An affirmative act of inducement, such as a demand or request by the public official, is not required. The Government need only establish that the official obtained a payment to which he was not entitled, knowing that it was made in return for official acts.
- Whether the jury instruction satisfied the quid pro quo requirement for a payment characterized as a campaign contribution.. The instruction requiring acceptance of money in exchange for a specific requested exercise of official power satisfied the quid pro quo requirement. The offense is complete upon receipt of payment in return for an agreement to perform specific official acts; fulfillment of that agreement is unnecessary.
- Whether official extortion requires a false pretense of legal entitlement to payment.. Official extortion is not limited to payments obtained through a false pretense of official entitlement.
Docket 90-6105
Cited authorities
- Rule 14.1(a)
- CA11
- CA10
- CA10
- CA 11
- 18 U.S.C. § 1951
- 18 U.S.C. § 1951
- 26 U.S.C. § 7206
Cited by
- United States v. Ring
- In re Edwin Towne
- Camelio v. American
- David Michaud, Plaintiff, Appellant v. Tina Nadeau; Michael McQuade; Wayne Perreault; Peter K. Odom; Susan G…
- United States of America, Appellee v. Juan M. Cruzado-Laureano, Defendant, Appellant
- United States of America, Appellee v. Jose Gerardo Cruz-Arroyo, Defendant, Appellant
- United States of America, Appellee v. Miguel Rivera-Hernández, Defendant, Appellant
- United States, Appellee v. Charles Turner, Defendant, Appellant