A Book from the Library of Defense

From OCDLA Library of Defense
Jump to: navigation, search

by: Rankin Johnson IV • May 7, 2018 • one comment

Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA


An indictment for conspiring or endeavoring to engage in racketeering activity must satisfy the same specificity requirements as an indictment alleging completed racketeering activity. Reversed and remanded.

By statute, an indictment alleging an ORICO violation must include specific details about each incident of racketeering that makes up the alleged pattern. The indictment alleged that the defendant had conspired or endeavored to engage in a pattern of racketeering activity, but did not include the statutorily-required details. Defendant demurred, and the trial court denied the demurrer, reasoning that the specificity requirements did not apply to a conspiracy, only to an allegation of completed racketeering. The Court of Appeals disagreed. The Supreme Court considered the text of the relevant statutes and agreed with the Court of Appeals.

State v. Stout 362 Or 758 (April 19, 2018) (Flynn, J.)

  • APPEALS -- Preservation

KJB was involuntarily civilly committed on the grounds that he was dangerous to himself and others and unable to provide for his basic needs. Although he had been released by the time of his appeal, the matter was not moot in light of the collateral consequences of a civil commitment. He failed to preserve the argument that, because he was in jail at the time of his commitment, he was presumptively receiving adequate medical care and therefore more able to provide for his basic needs. Affirmed.

State v. KJB 291 362 Or 777 (April 19, 2018) (Landau, J.)