State v. Stout, 415 P.3d 567

Defendant was indicted under ORS 166.720(4) for conspiring/endeavoring to participate in an enterprise "through a pattern of racketeering activity" (the amended indictment alleged a "pattern of racketeering activity consisting of theft").
The original indictment had alleged completed predicate thefts with specific dates/victims and complied with ORS 166.720(6); the amended indictment omitted those particulars.
Defendants demurred pretrial, arguing ORS 166.720(6) requires pleading specific details for each incident that makes up a claimed pattern; trial court denied the demurrer and convictions followed.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding ORS 166.720(6) applies to indictments alleging a pattern of racketeering activity even when charged as a conspiracy/endeavor under ORS 166.720(4).
The Oregon Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether the ORS 166.720(6) pleading requirement applies to conspiracy/endeavor charges that may allege an intended (not yet completed) pattern of racketeering.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals: ORS 166.720(6) applies to all indictments alleging a pattern of racketeering activity, including conspiracy/endeavor charges; because the amended indictment omitted required details, the demurrer should have been allowed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ORS 166.720(6)'s pleading requirements for an "allegation of a pattern of racketeering activity" apply to conspiracy/endeavor charges under ORS 166.720(4)	State: (Plaintiff) ORS 166.720(6) applies only to charges alleging a completed pattern; conspiracy need not be proved by completed predicate acts, so the special pleading does not apply	Stout: (Defendant) The statute applies broadly to any indictment alleging a pattern; the amended indictment alleging conspiracy through a "pattern" must plead the detailed incident-level facts ORS 166.720(6) demands	The court held ORS 166.720(6) applies to all ORICO indictments alleging a pattern of racketeering activity, including conspiracy/endeavor charges; the amended indictment was insufficient and the demurrer should have been granted

State v. Walker, 356 Or. 4 (discussing ORICO's focus on multiplicity and organized character)
State v. Fair, 326 Or. 485 (Court of Appeals decision prompting legislative clarification of pleading standards)
State v. Kincaid, 78 Or. App. 23 (holding ORICO indictments must identify predicate incidents with specificity)
State v. Sanders, 280 Or. 685 (explaining circumstances sometimes must be alleged to charge the defendant with specific acts)