of people served
rated by clients
available to help
In Minnesota, criminal liability can attach not only when a crime is successfully completed, but also when a person attempts to commit a crime but ultimately fails. Minnesota Statute 609.275 specifically addresses the crime of Attempt to Coerce. This offense occurs when an individual makes one of the specific types of threats prohibited under the main Coercion statute (Minn. Stat. § 609.27, subd. 1), intending to force someone to act or refrain from acting against their will, but ultimately fails to cause that intended outcome. The threat is made, the intent is present, but the victim does not comply, or some other factor prevents the completion of the coercion.
Even though the coercion was unsuccessful, the act of making the prohibited threat with the intent to compel behavior is still considered a criminal offense under 609.275. The law recognizes the harm inherent in the threat itself and the attempt to override another person’s free will. The penalties for Attempt to Coerce are determined by referencing Minnesota’s general attempt statute (Minn. Stat. § 609.17), which typically sets the maximum penalty at one-half of that provided for the completed crime. This means the potential penalties for attempted coercion still vary based on the potential pecuniary gain or loss associated with the intended (but failed) coerced act.
Attempt to Coerce, as defined by Minnesota Statute 609.275, criminalizes the act of trying, but failing, to commit the crime of Coercion. The core of the offense lies in the defendant making a threat that falls within one of the categories prohibited by the main Coercion statute (Minn. Stat. § 609.27, subd. 1, clauses 1-6), coupled with the specific intent to cause the recipient of the threat to do something or stop doing something against their will. However, unlike completed coercion where the threat successfully compels the action or forbearance, in an attempt scenario, the threat fails to achieve its intended result. The victim might refuse to comply, call the police, or simply ignore the threat, thereby preventing the coercion from being completed.
Despite the failure to compel the victim’s actions, the law still punishes the attempt. Statute 609.275 recognizes that making such prohibited threats with coercive intent is itself harmful and dangerous behavior that warrants criminal sanctions. The focus shifts from the successful outcome of the coercion to the defendant’s actions (making the specific threat) and their culpable mental state (intending to coerce). The severity of the attempt charge, like the completed offense, is linked to the potential financial stakes involved in the intended, but failed, coercion, with penalties calculated based on the general attempt statute, 609.17.
The specific law defining Attempt to Coerce and linking its punishment to the general attempt statute is found in Minnesota Statute § 609.275. This section clarifies that making a prohibited threat from section 609.27 without achieving the intended result constitutes the crime of attempt.
609.275 ATTEMPT TO COERCE.
Whoever makes a threat within the meaning of section 609.27, subdivision 1, clauses (1) to (6), but fails to cause the intended act or forbearance, commits an attempt to coerce and may be punished as provided in section 609.17.
To secure a conviction for Attempt to Coerce under Minnesota Statute 609.275, the prosecution must prove several distinct elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Unlike completed coercion, the focus here is not on the success of the threat but on the defendant’s actions and intent in making the threat. Failure to establish any of these components means the attempt charge cannot be sustained. Understanding these elements is key to analyzing an Attempt to Coerce case.
The penalties for Attempt to Coerce under Minnesota Statute 609.275 are not specified directly within the statute itself. Instead, section 609.275 directs that punishment should be determined according to Minnesota’s general attempt statute, section 609.17. This statute (specifically 609.17, subd. 4) generally provides that an attempt to commit a crime is punishable by up to one-half of the maximum statutory penalty (both imprisonment and fine) authorized for the completed crime.
Because the completed crime of Coercion (609.27) has tiered penalties based on pecuniary gain or loss, the penalties for Attempt to Coerce are correspondingly tiered, calculated at half the maximums of the intended, but failed, coercion level:
If the intended coercion involved pecuniary gain/loss of $300 or less, or was non-measurable (making the completed crime a misdemeanor punishable by up to 90 days/$1,000 fine), the attempt is also a misdemeanor. Under 609.17, the maximum penalty is likely up to 45 days imprisonment or a fine of not more than $500, or both.
If the intended coercion involved pecuniary gain/loss over $300 but less than $2,500 (making the completed crime a felony punishable by up to 5 years/$10,000 fine), the attempt is a felony. Under 609.17, the maximum penalty is up to 2.5 years (two years and six months) imprisonment or payment of a fine of not more than $5,000, or both.
If the intended coercion involved pecuniary gain/loss of $2,500 or more (making the completed crime a felony punishable by up to 10 years/$20,000 fine), the attempt is a serious felony. Under 609.17, the maximum penalty is up to 5 years imprisonment or payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.
The crime of Attempt to Coerce focuses on the defendant’s effort and intent to unlawfully compel someone through specific threats, even if that effort ultimately proves unsuccessful. Liability attaches because the law recognizes the inherent wrongfulness and potential danger in making such prohibited threats with coercive intent. The key difference from completed coercion is the lack of success; the victim does not yield to the pressure of the threat. Therefore, the prosecution doesn’t need to prove the victim acted against their will, only that the defendant made the threat intending to cause that result, and failed.
Understanding this crime involves recognizing situations where a qualifying threat under 609.27 is made with clear coercive intent, but the intended victim resists, ignores the threat, reports the conduct, or otherwise prevents the coercion from being completed. The potential penalties still correlate with the severity of the intended (but failed) coercion, based on the financial stakes involved. The following examples illustrate scenarios where an Attempt to Coerce charge might apply under the valid clauses of 609.27.
An individual attempts to prevent a witness from testifying by threatening, “If you testify against my friend, you’ll get hurt after court.” The witness, despite the threat, decides to testify anyway, refusing to be intimidated. The intended forbearance (not testifying) did not occur.
This could be charged as Attempt to Coerce under 609.275, referencing 609.27, subd. 1(1). The defendant made a threat to unlawfully inflict bodily harm. The intent was to cause the witness to forbear doing a lawful act (testifying) against their will. However, the threat failed to cause the intended forbearance. Depending on whether any pecuniary gain/loss could be associated with the intended outcome (unlikely here), this would likely be an attempted misdemeanor coercion.
A company representative threatens a supplier, “Lower your prices on the next contract, or we’ll start a baseless negative PR campaign targeting your company’s environmental record.” The supplier believes the threat could unlawfully injure their business but refuses to lower prices, choosing instead to potentially fight the PR campaign or seek legal protection.
This scenario could constitute Attempt to Coerce under 609.275, referencing 609.27, subd. 1(3). A threat was made to unlawfully injure the supplier’s business. The intent was to cause the supplier to do an act (lower prices) against their will. The threat failed to achieve this result. The penalty level would depend on the potential pecuniary gain/loss associated with the intended price reduction. If significant, it could be an attempted felony.
An individual is involved in a civil dispute. They tell the opposing party, “Drop your lawsuit, or I’ll go to the police and falsely claim you assaulted me during our last argument.” The opposing party refuses to drop the lawsuit, recognizing the threat as improper leverage.
This fits the pattern of Attempt to Coerce via 609.27, subd. 1(5). A threat was made to cause a false criminal charge. The intent was to cause the victim to forbear a lawful act (pursuing the lawsuit) against their will. The threat failed. As the intended benefit/harm (value of dropping the lawsuit) might be hard to measure pecuniarily, this would likely be charged as an attempted misdemeanor.
An individual threatens a former partner, “Pay me $500, or I’ll post your private photos online.” This is a threat to violate 617.261. The victim refuses to pay the money and instead reports the threat to the police.
This is Attempt to Coerce under 609.275, referencing 609.27, subd. 1(6). A threat to commit a violation of 617.261 was made. The intent was to cause the victim to do an act (pay money) against their will. The threat failed. Because the intended pecuniary gain/loss ($500) is between $300 and $2,500, this would likely be charged as an attempted mid-level felony (max penalty 2.5 years / $5k fine).
Defending against an Attempt to Coerce charge under Minnesota Statute 609.275 involves scrutinizing the elements specific to attempt liability, particularly the defendant’s actions and intent, since the successful outcome required for completed coercion is absent. While the penalties are reduced compared to the completed offense (generally halved under 609.17), a conviction, especially at the felony level, still carries significant consequences. Defense strategies focus on demonstrating that the prosecution cannot prove all required elements of the attempt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Key defenses often involve challenging whether a legally prohibited threat was actually made, disputing the defendant’s alleged intent to coerce, arguing that the defendant voluntarily abandoned their criminal purpose before completing the attempt (an affirmative defense), or raising constitutional issues. An attorney will analyze the specific communications, the context, and any evidence related to the defendant’s state of mind to build the most effective defense against the attempt charge.
Similar to defending against completed coercion, a primary defense is challenging the existence or nature of the threat itself.
Attempt crimes require proof of specific intent. For attempt to coerce, the prosecution must prove the defendant made the threat with the specific intent to cause the victim to act or forbear against their will.
Minnesota’s general attempt statute (609.17, subd. 3) provides an affirmative defense if the defendant abandoned the attempt under specific circumstances.
While Clause (4) of the underlying coercion statute was already found unconstitutional, defenses might arise challenging the application of other clauses in specific contexts based on free speech or vagueness grounds.
Coercion (609.27) requires proof that the defendant made a prohibited threat and that the threat successfully caused the victim to act or forbear against their will. Attempt to Coerce (609.275) requires proof the defendant made the prohibited threat with the intent to cause the action/forbearance, but failed to achieve that result.
Attempt liability exists because the law seeks to punish individuals who take substantial steps towards committing a crime with the required criminal intent, even if they ultimately fail. Making a prohibited threat with the intent to coerce is considered a dangerous act deserving of punishment, regardless of the victim’s reaction or compliance.
Minn. Stat. § 609.275 states punishment is determined by the general attempt statute, Minn. Stat. § 609.17. This generally means the maximum penalty (prison time and/or fine) for an attempt is one-half of the maximum penalty for the completed crime that was attempted.
Based on halving the penalties for completed coercion (609.27):
It depends on the severity level of the coercion that was attempted. Attempting misdemeanor coercion is a misdemeanor. Attempting either of the felony levels of coercion is a felony, albeit with lower maximum penalties than the completed felony.
Yes. A core element of Attempt to Coerce is making a threat “within the meaning of section 609.27, subdivision 1, clauses (1) to (6).” The prosecution must prove the threat fits one of the valid, specific categories listed in the main coercion statute (excluding the unconstitutional Clause 4).
No. Since Clause (4) of 609.27 was found unconstitutional, a person cannot be validly charged with Attempt to Coerce based solely on making a threat that falls only under Clause (4) (threats of exposure/ridicule). The attempted threat must fit one of the remaining valid clauses (1, 2, 3, 5, or 6).
Under Minn. Stat. § 609.17, subd. 3, it’s an affirmative defense if the defendant proves they voluntarily and completely abandoned their criminal effort before the crime was completed, under circumstances showing a genuine renunciation of their criminal purpose. Simply being scared off or failing is not enough.
While the victim’s reaction might be circumstantial evidence of intent or whether a statement was reasonably perceived as a threat, the core elements focus on the defendant’s actions (making the threat) and intent (to coerce), and the failure of that attempt. Technically, the crime could occur even if the victim didn’t subjectively feel fear, as long as the defendant made the prohibited threat with coercive intent but failed.
Yes. Statute 609.27 (referenced by 609.275) applies to threats made “orally or in writing.” Electronic communications qualify as written threats.
The type of intent required is the same: intent to cause the victim to act or forbear against their will using a prohibited threat. The difference is the outcome: in completed coercion, this intent leads to the desired result; in attempt, the intent exists, but the result is not achieved.
It depends. If they truly voluntarily and completely renounce their criminal purpose before the attempt causes any irrevocable step or harm, and communicate this withdrawal, it might qualify as abandonment under 609.17, subd. 3. If they only stop because they fear getting caught or are interrupted, it’s likely not a valid abandonment defense.
Yes. If the act constituting the attempt also involves another crime (e.g., making the threat involved a physical assault), separate charges could potentially be brought, subject to rules about multiple punishments (though 609.2691 doesn’t directly apply here unless the attempt was related to sections 609.2661-609.268).
Section 609.17 sets the maximum penalty at one-half. A judge imposes the actual sentence based on sentencing guidelines (for felonies) or discretion (for misdemeanors), considering the case facts and criminal history. The actual sentence might be less than the halved maximum.
Yes. The statute of limitations follows that of the completed crime being attempted. Attempted Misdemeanor Coercion generally has a two-year limit. Attempted Felony Coercion generally has a three-year limit (Minn. Stat. § 628.26).
Even though Attempt to Coerce under Minnesota Statute 609.275 involves a failed attempt to compel someone’s actions, a conviction can still carry significant long-term consequences. Similar to completed coercion, the severity of these impacts depends on whether the attempt conviction is classified as a misdemeanor or a felony, which in turn depends on the pecuniary gain or loss associated with the intended (but unsuccessful) coercion.
A conviction for attempted coercion results in a criminal record and can create various challenges. Felony-level attempt convictions, while carrying potentially lower maximum sentences than completed felonies (generally halved under 609.17), still trigger many of the same serious collateral consequences, including the loss of civil rights. Understanding these potential long-term effects is crucial when facing any attempt charge.
A conviction for Attempt to Coerce, whether graded as a misdemeanor or a felony attempt, creates a permanent criminal record. A felony attempt record carries more weight and stigma. While misdemeanor attempt records may be eligible for expungement after waiting periods, felony attempt records are often much harder or impossible to seal. This record will appear on background checks.
The presence of an attempt conviction, indicating intent to coerce through unlawful threats even if unsuccessful, can raise concerns for potential employers, landlords, and licensing bodies. It may suggest issues with judgment, trustworthiness, or propensity for manipulation, potentially leading to denied opportunities, especially for felony-level attempts.
An Attempt to Coerce conviction can negatively affect employment and housing searches. Employers conducting background checks may view the conviction unfavorably, particularly for roles requiring trust, financial responsibility, or interpersonal skills. Felony-level attempt convictions pose greater barriers, potentially disqualifying candidates from many jobs or professions.
Similarly, landlords may deny rental applications based on attempt convictions, especially felony attempts, viewing them as indicators of potential risk or problematic behavior. This can limit housing choices and contribute to instability, mirroring the challenges faced by those convicted of completed offenses, albeit potentially to a slightly lesser degree depending on the charge level.
If the Attempt to Coerce conviction is classified as a felony (i.e., attempting coercion involving potential gain/loss over $300), it triggers the same significant loss of civil rights as a completed felony. This includes the permanent loss of the right to possess firearms or ammunition under state and federal law. Voting rights are suspended during incarceration and supervised release/probation (restorable afterward). The right to serve on a jury is typically lost.
These consequences do not generally apply to misdemeanor-level attempt convictions under state law (unless federal law applies due to specific circumstances like domestic violence context). The grading of the attempt as a felony or misdemeanor based on the intended financial impact is therefore critical in determining these long-term civil rights implications.
For non-U.S. citizens, an Attempt to Coerce conviction could potentially lead to negative immigration consequences. Attempt crimes, especially felony attempts or those potentially viewed as crimes involving moral turpitude, can impact admissibility, ability to adjust status, or even lead to deportation. Consultation with an immigration attorney is essential.
Furthermore, a conviction for attempting to coerce someone through unlawful threats can damage one’s reputation within personal and professional circles. It suggests a willingness to use intimidation and manipulation, which can erode trust and affect relationships and community standing, regardless of whether the attempt succeeded.
Proving criminal attempt requires the prosecution to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with the specific intent to commit the underlying crime – in this case, coercion. For Attempt to Coerce under 609.275, this means proving the defendant made a prohibited threat with the specific purpose of causing the victim to act or forbear against their will. A Minnesota criminal defense attorney carefully scrutinizes the evidence related to intent, which is often circumstantial. The attorney challenges assumptions about the defendant’s state of mind, arguing perhaps that the communication was misconstrued, made in jest or anger without true coercive intent, or aimed at a different outcome entirely. Effectively raising reasonable doubt about the specific intent to coerce is paramount in defending against an attempt charge.
Liability for Attempt to Coerce hinges on the defendant having made a threat “within the meaning of section 609.27, subdivision 1, clauses (1) to (6).” A defense attorney meticulously compares the alleged threat against the specific language and legal interpretation of these valid clauses (excluding the unconstitutional clause 4). The attorney assesses whether the threat was truly “unlawful” where required, whether it fits the defined category (e.g., threat to business vs. mere criticism), and whether it meets any specific conditions (e.g., threat of bodily harm where robbery is not committed). If the alleged threat does not squarely fall within one of the legally defined prohibited categories, the attempt charge cannot be sustained, providing a complete defense.
Unique to attempt crimes is the potential affirmative defense of abandonment or renunciation, as outlined in Minnesota Statute 609.17, subd. 3. An attorney representing someone charged with Attempt to Coerce will explore whether the facts support this defense. This requires showing the defendant voluntarily and completely abandoned their effort to coerce before the crime neared completion, under circumstances manifesting a genuine change of heart and renunciation of the criminal purpose. For example, did the defendant retract the threat and apologize before the victim could possibly act? While often difficult to prove, successfully establishing abandonment negates liability for the attempt, and an attorney can advise on whether the facts warrant pursuing this specific statutory defense.
Since the penalties for Attempt to Coerce are tiered based on the intended (but failed) pecuniary gain/loss, linked to the completed coercion penalties via the halving rule in 609.17, an attorney’s role includes addressing this calculation. The attorney challenges the prosecution’s valuation of the intended gain/loss to ensure the attempt charge is graded at the correct level (misdemeanor or appropriate felony tier). Furthermore, the attorney thoroughly explains the potential penalties and distinct long-term collateral consequences associated with each potential conviction level (misdemeanor attempt vs. felony attempt), helping the client understand the stakes and make informed decisions regarding plea offers or trial strategy, always aiming to minimize both the immediate sentence and the lasting impacts.
