United States v. Carlson, No. 14-1780 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCarlson took her pets to the Lakeville, Minnesota Southfork Animal Hospital, sometimes daily. Dr. Belisle, a Southfork veterinarian, received letters detailing how she would be kidnapped, tortured, and raped. Eight letters, sent during two months, were hand-addressed to Belisle at Southfork. Two letters were sent to other employees, detailing violence that would be committed against them and Belisle. Three businesses near the animal hospital also received threatening letters, falsely signed in the name of Belisle. Carlson was charged with nine counts of mailing a threatening communication, 18 U.S.C. 876(c); and three counts of mailing a threatening communication with intent to extort, 18 U.S.C. 876 (b) and (d). Testimony established that Carlson was infatuated with Belisle and had called, threatening to shoot children at a nearby daycare if Belisle did not meet her at a gas station. A handwriting expert concluded that it was “highly probable” that Carlson wrote the letters. The Eighth Circuit reversed her conviction on the extortion count, but affirmed her convictions on the other counts. With respect to an extortion letter sent to a business, there was no way for the jury to determine, without the text of section 876, that the statute’s context implied that “person” could not be a corporation.
Court Description: Kelly, Author, with Loken and Bright, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions for mailing threatening and extortionate communications; 18 U.S.C. Sec 876 requires the intent to extort from a natural person, a fact which must be determined by a jury in order to reach a conviction; the district court erred when it gave a jury instruction that removed this question from the jury and reduced the element in three counts to a presumption that would be satisfied so long as the jury found defendant had sent a letter to each of the named corporate or business entities; however, the error was harmless since two of the letters had been addressed to the managers of the stores and no reasonable jury could conclude that the store managers for a Target store and an auto dealer were not persons within the meaning of the statute; however, the third letter and third count involved a letter simply sent to a business and the conviction on this count must be vacated and remanded for further proceedings. Judge Loken, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.