Opinion ID: 1693549
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The particular alternative of extortion to which Gant pleaded guilty. As pertinent to this case,

Text: [a] person commits extortion if the person does any of the following with the purpose of obtaining for oneself or another anything of value, tangible or intangible, including labor or services: . . . . 6. Threatens to testify or provide information or to withhold testimony or information with respect to another's legal claim or defense. Iowa Code § 711.4(6) (emphasis added). B. Existence of a threat. As mentioned, Gant told Graber that Gant knew the whereabouts of Graber's stolen property and that he was not going to give Graber that information unless Graber paid Gant money. Gant insists that this conversation with Graber as admitted in the plea proceeding does not constitute an extortionate threat against Graber. In Crone, we applied the dictionary meaning to the word threat in section 711.4. We said that an extortionate threat is a promise of punishment, of reprisal, or of other distress. See Crone, 545 N.W.2d at 271. An extortionate threat also includes an act of retaliation. Id. An extortionate threat need not be explicit. Id. Such a threat may arise out of innuendo or suggestion. Id. All that is necessary is that the threat be definite and understandable to a reasonable person of ordinary intelligence. Id. We think a reasonable person of ordinary intelligence would have understood Gant's statement to be a promise of retaliation if Graber did not pay him the money: If you fail to pay me the money, I will not tell you where your property is. C. Legal claim or defense. Gant has a fall-back position. He thinks section 711.4(6) does not apply because there was no civil or criminal action pending when he made the alleged threat. The other key words in section 711.4(6) are testimony, information, legal claim, and defense. The statute does not define any of these words. We therefore look to the ordinary and common meaning of these terms. See Crone, 545 N.W.2d at 271. Testimony includes a particular kind of evidence that comes to [a] tribunal through live witnesses speaking under oath or affirmation in [the] presence of a tribunal, judicial or quasi-judicial. Black's Law Dictionary 1465 (6th ed.1990). Information, on the other hand, is a broader term referring to knowledge communicated by others or obtained from investigation, study, or instruction. Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1160 (unabr. ed.1993). The noun claim has a broad meaning and includes, among other things, a cause of action. Black's Law Dictionary 247 (6th ed. 1990). A cause of action is defined as [a] situation or state of facts which would entitle a party to sustain an action and [would] give that [party] a right to seek a judicial remedy in the party's behalf. Id. at 221. In contrast to a legal claim, a defense, in the context of a civil case, is [t]hat which is offered and alleged by the party proceeded against in an action or suit, as a reason in law or fact why the plaintiff should not recover or establish what he seeks. Id. at 419. In the context of a criminal matter, a defense to a criminal charge may include such things as alibi, consent, and duress. Id. Therefore, as applied to the charge here, a person commits extortion if for the purpose of obtaining anything of value, the person threatens to withhold knowledgewhether communicated by others or obtained from investigation pertaining to a person's cause of action. There is no requirement in the statute that the threat must relate to a pending civil matter. See Iowa R.App. P. 14(f)(13) (In construing statutes the court searches for the legislative intent as shown by what the legislature said, rather than what it should or might have said.). A legal claim exists even though the party asserting the claim has not filed a lawsuit to enforce it. Therefore, the extortion occurs if the person threatens to withhold knowledge on an action that might ultimately be filed. Here, Graber had a substantive right against the thief to recover in court possession of his stolen property or its value. See generally Iowa Code ch. 643. When Gant threatened to withhold information that might aid Graber to vindicate that right in court unless Graber paid him for the information, Gant violated Iowa Code section 711.4(6). We therefore conclude there was a factual basis for Gant's guilty plea. Because there was a factual basis for the plea, Gant's trial counsel was not ineffective for not challenging the plea either during the plea proceedings or by a motion in arrest of judgment. We therefore affirm the court of appeals decision and the district court judgment of conviction and sentence. DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS AND JUDGMENT OF DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED.