How have courts dealt with an allegation that a defendant used threats of criminal prosecution to extort money from employees he had accused of stealing?

We conclude that all six incidents tend to show that it was the common practice of the defendant to extort money from employees he had accused of stealing by threatening criminal prosecution. In fact, the evidence clearly demonstrates defendant's common plan and scheme to extract moneys (in which he had a substantial pecuniary interest) from employees caught or accused of stealing from their employers by threats of prosecution and promises of freedom if the employees made restitution, and in most cases to extract arbitrary amounts far in excess of the amounts which the employees admitted taking. Thus, we also conclude that the evidence is plainly relevant and properly admitted, for it tended to show criminal methods and purposes similar to the offenses charged in the indictment (People v. Tarantino, supra, 45 Cal.2d 590, 290 P.2d 505), and that they were all part of a common scheme and plan (People v. Francisco, supra, 112 Cal.App. 442, 297 P. 34). Appellant's arguments to the contrary are mainly concerned with conflicts in the evidence, which were apparently resolved against him by the jury.