Criminal extortion under C.R.S. § 18-3-207 criminalizes threatening someone to force them to act (or not act) against their will — and increasingly, it’s charged in connection with online “sextortion” and other digital threats, not just the classic shakedown.
What the Prosecution Must Prove
A person commits criminal extortion by, without legal authority and with intent to induce someone to act (or not act) against their will, making a substantial threat to confine, restrain, cause economic hardship or bodily injury to, or damage the property or reputation of the threatened person or someone else — where the threat is to be carried out by an unlawful act, or by invoking a third party (like a government agency) whose interests aren’t genuinely related to the threat.
A separate provision, added in 2006 and amended in 2021, criminalizes threatening to report someone’s immigration status in order to extract money or compel action.
“Aggravated” criminal extortion applies when the threat involves chemical, biological, or radioactive agents, weapons, or poison.
How It’s Classified and Sentenced
Criminal extortion (including the immigration-status variant) is a class 4 felony. Aggravated criminal extortion is a class 3 felony.
Case Law That Shapes Extortion Defense
People v. Knox, 2019 COA 152: The threat of litigation does not constitute criminal extortion. To convict, the prosecution must prove the defendant threatened to commit an actual unlawful act — threatening to sue someone, even aggressively, isn’t extortion because filing a lawsuit is lawful.
People v. Campbell, 174 P.3d 860 (Colo. App. 2007): The current version of the statute, substantially rewritten in 1994, does not reach constitutionally protected speech and is not unconstitutionally overbroad — a significant change from the pre-1994 version, which Colorado courts had struck down for sweeping in protected speech like threats of lawful collective action.
People v. Czemerynski, 786 P.2d 1100 (Colo. 1990): The statute gives sufficient notice of what conduct is prohibited and isn’t unconstitutionally vague — a person of ordinary intelligence understands that threatening phone calls made to intimidate a victim are covered.
People v. Gallegos, 260 P.3d 15 (Colo. App. 2010): An indictment alleging only that a sheriff threatened to transfer an already-confined inmate to a different jail unless the inmate worked on the sheriff’s home did not adequately allege the “threat to confine or restrain” element, since the inmate was already confined — a reminder that the specific threat charged has to actually match the statutory language.
Possible Defenses
The threatened act was lawful — under Knox, threatening to sue, report wrongdoing through proper channels, or pursue a legitimate legal remedy isn’t extortion.
No substantial threat — the statute requires a threat reasonably likely to induce belief it will be carried out; vague or clearly non-serious statements may not qualify.
Lack of intent to induce action against the person’s will.
Charging defects — as in Gallegos, the specific threat alleged must actually fit the statutory elements.
Charged With Extortion?
Extortion charges range from felony to aggravated felony exposure, and increasingly involve digital threats and sextortion schemes. Mile High Legal defends extortion and related charges across Colorado. Call now for a free, confidential case review.
