State v. Harrington

128 Vt. 242, 260 A.2d 692 (1969)

Quick Summary

Quick Summary Icon

John Harrington (defendant), a lawyer, was hired by Norma Morin (plaintiff) to represent her in divorce proceedings against Armand Morin (plaintiff). Harrington arranged an entrapment to prove Armand’s infidelity and demanded $175,000 for a discreet divorce settlement, leveraging the evidence collected.

The main issue was whether Harrington’s actions constituted extortion under Vermont law. The Vermont Supreme Court held that Harrington’s conduct did indeed amount to extortion and affirmed his conviction.

Facts of the Case

Facts of the case Icon

John Harrington (defendant), an attorney, was employed by Norma Morin (plaintiff) to secure a divorce from her husband, Armand Morin (plaintiff). Norma, lacking the funds to pay for legal services, agreed with Harrington to work on a contingency basis tied to the value of their marital assets, worth approximately $50,000.

In their efforts to prove Armand’s infidelity, Harrington and Norma orchestrated a plan to entrap him into committing adultery at his motel. Harrington hired a woman, equipped with recording devices, to seduce Armand in his motel room. They captured photographic evidence of the affair.

Using this evidence, Harrington then sent Armand a letter demanding $175,000 in exchange for a quiet divorce and the withholding of the incriminating materials from public exposure and legal proceedings. The letter also hinted at potential reports to tax and customs authorities regarding Armand’s illegal activities. This letter led to Harrington’s conviction under Vermont’s extortion law.

Procedural Posture and History

History Icon
  1. Harrington was convicted for extortion under Vermont law.
  2. Harrington filed a motion for acquittal which was denied by the trial court.
  3. Harrington appealed the conviction to the Vermont Supreme Court.

I.R.A.C. Format


Issue Icon

Whether the actions and communications of John Harrington constituted a threat to accuse Armand Morin of adultery with the intent to extort money, thereby violating Vermont law.

Rule of Law

Rule Icon

An individual who threatens another with an accusation of a crime or injury to person or property, with the intent to extort money or compel an act against their will, is punishable under Vermont law.

Reasoning and Analysis

Reasoning Icon

The Supreme Court of Vermont determined that jurisdiction was appropriately established because Harrington’s act of mailing the threatening letter occurred within Vermont. The Court found that the attempt at extortion was completed the moment Harrington sent the letter, regardless of where the impact was felt.

Moreover, the content of the letter clearly threatened to accuse Morin of adultery and suggested further actions that could be damaging to Morin’s personal and professional life. These threats went beyond the scope of seeking a favorable divorce settlement for his client and entered into the territory of extortion.

The Court rejected Harrington’s defense that he acted merely as an attorney seeking a settlement for his client. Instead, it found that the premeditated creation of incriminating evidence and the nature of the demands in the letter supported a finding of malicious intent. The Court affirmed that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict of guilty.


Conclusion Icon

The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed Harrington’s conviction for extortion.

Key Takeaways

Takeaway Icon
  1. The mailing of a threatening letter within Vermont satisfied jurisdictional requirements for the state’s courts to try an extortion case.
  2. An attorney’s actions can cross the line from legal representation to criminal conduct if they involve threats and demands beyond what is necessary for client representation.
  3. Extortion can occur even if the threat is delivered privately and does not involve a formal accusation if it is intended to compel payment or action against someone’s will.

Relevant FAQs of this case

What distinguishes legitimate negotiation tactics from extortion during settlement discussions?

Legitimate negotiation involves pursuing a client’s interests within legal and ethical boundaries, focusing on resolution without threats of criminal allegations or harm. Extortion, on the other hand, involves coercive threats to compel payment or action, often involving the exploitation of fear or vulnerability.

  • For example: Demanding payment in exchange for not reporting alleged illegal activity to the police is extortion, whereas proposing a monetary settlement to avoid the costs of litigation is a legitimate negotiation tactic.

In what circumstances can an attorney's actions in representation of a client be considered criminal conduct?

An attorney’s actions may be deemed criminal if they violate laws relevant to the conduct, such as engaging in fraudulent activities, making threats of harm, or otherwise intentionally performing acts that extend beyond zealous representation into illegal behavior.

  • For example: An attorney falsifying evidence to support a client’s case can be charged with obstruction of justice or fraud.

How does intent affect the legal definition and consequences of extortion?

Intent is crucial in distinguishing extortion from mere aggressive tactics; it involves a deliberate aim to use threats to force someone to give up property or legal rights against their will. If the intent is purely persuasive within legal bounds, it typically does not constitute extortion.

  • For example: Threatening to ruin someone’s reputation unless they pay a sum of money demonstrates an intent to extort, while asserting a claim to that money through direct legal means does not.


Last updated

Was this case brief helpful?

More Case Briefs in Criminal Law