Steve Wynn's Casino Hotel

FN4. Phillips also asserts that the amended indictments improperly charged him with a new or additional offense not considered by the grand jury and that he was substantially prejudiced by the amendments. We have considered this issue and find it to be without merit.

Extortion

Phillips asserts that the Nevada extortion statute does not impose criminal liability for demanding money based upon a claim of common heritage with another person. Phillips argues that if this were true, then every heir would be committing extortion by virtue of demanding a share of an estate based upon common heritage. Phillips contends that a claim of common heritage is not criminally actionable.

Because the jury entered only a general finding of guilt on the extortion charges, Phillips argues that it is impossible to discern which theory of extortion the jury used to convict him and that they therefore could have convicted him on the legally insufficient theory of claiming a common heritage. Phillips asserts that the jury's general extortion verdicts must be set aside.

The State argues that threatening to expose Wynn to "alleged claims of common heritage" falls within the libel, disgrace or secret provisions of the statute and that there is no possibility Phillips was convicted of extortion based upon legally insufficient acts.

If several theories of criminal liability are presented to the jury and one is legally insufficient or unconstitutional, a general verdict cannot stand regardless of whether the other theories are legally sufficient and factually supported. [FN5] Conversely, if the theories are all legally sufficient, a general verdict can stand even if sufficient evidence supports only one of the theories. [FN6] "Jurors are not generally equipped to determine whether a particular theory of conviction submitted to them is contrary to law--whether, for example, the action in question ... fails to come within the statutory definition of the crime." [FN7] Thus, we must ascertain whether a claim of common heritage, standing alone, constitutes a crime under Nevada's extortion statute. If such a claim falls within one of the enumerated methods for committing extortion, then a general verdict form is sufficient. If it does not, then lack of a special verdict mandates reversal of the extortion convictions.