Opinion ID: 476836
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Reasonable Person Instruction

Text: 72 While instructing the jury on the elements of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 894, the trial court stated: 73 If you find, under all the circumstances shown in the evidence, an ordinary person would have been put in fear of immediate bodily or economic harm, or future bodily or economic harm from anything the defendant said or did, then you may find that the defendant did use extortionate means to instill fear within the meaning of these instructions. 74 Matranga objected to this language, asking that the instruction read: an ordinary person, having the knowledge of the circumstances which the alleged victim would have, would be placed in fear. Matranga argues that his formulation is required in order to take into account the long friendship between him and Hall and the likelihood that Hall would not have been frightened by Matranga's words and actions. 75 As we previously discussed, section 894 does not require proof of actual fear in the victim, but only the defendant's intent to use extortionate means. The instruction directs the jury to consider the question under all the circumstances shown in the evidence. In addition, the court also gave the following instructions: 76 Extortionate means, as defined in the law applicable to this case, includes any means which involves the use or any express or implicit threat of use of violence or other criminal means to cause harm to the person, reputation or property of any person. 77 Acts or statements constitute a threat under the law if they instill fear to the person to whom they are directed, or are reasonably calculated to do so, in the light of surrounding circumstances. 78 (Emphasis added.) 79 The instructions, as given, adequately informed the jury that it must consider the alleged victim's particular circumstances in determining whether extortionate means were used.