State v. Walker

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Law
  • Date Filed: 08-29-2012
  • Case #: A142712
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Haselton, C.J. for the Court; Armstrong, P.J.; and Edmonds, S.J. dissented.
  • Full Text Opinion

A racketeering charge under ORS 166.720(3) requires the defendant to have participated in an enterprise, which is an on-going organization with continuity, and that organization is distinct from the criminal acts.

Defendant appealed a conviction for racketeering, ORS 166.720(3), assigning error to denial of motion for judgment of acquittal. Defendant argued that there wasn’t sufficient evidence to show he participated in an “enterprise,” as defined by ORS 166.715 – 166.735. An “enterprise” according to ORS 166.715(2) and ORS 166.720(3) must partake of “an on-going organization, however loose, that is distinct from the commission of separate criminal acts.” The facts show that Defendant and another man, had on three occasions entered a Safeway store together to steal the same types of items each time (laundry detergent, diapers, shrimp, and beer) over the course of two months. The Court of Appeals concluded that there was enough evidence to permit a jury to find that Defendant and the other man were associated in fact through an informal partnership in an enterprise that was ongoing over time. Affirmed.

Advanced Search