State v. Stout, 382 P.3d 591

Defendant and four codefendants were originally indicted on racketeering plus multiple related counts; the original indictment listed 22 predicate offenses (including multiple thefts) for the racketeering count.
The state later filed an amended indictment charging only an ORICO violation (conspire/endeavor under ORS 166.720(4)) alleging a "pattern of racketeering activity consisting of theft" but did not enumerate predicate acts.
Defendant demurred and later moved in arrest of judgment, arguing ORS 166.720(6)(a) requires particularized pleading of each predicate act supporting a pattern of racketeering activity; both motions were denied at trial.
On appeal the sole legal question was whether ORS 166.720(6)’s heightened pleading requirements for "an allegation of a pattern of racketeering activity" apply to inchoate ORICO offenses charged under ORS 166.720(4).
The court examined statutory text, context, legislative history, and precedent and concluded the plain language of ORS 166.720(6) applies to any allegation of a pattern of racketeering activity, including conspiracy/attempt charges under subsection (4).
Because the amended indictment failed to plead the acts constituting each incident of racketeering activity as required by ORS 166.720(6)(a), the conviction was reversed and the case remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ORS 166.720(6)’s heightened pleading requirements for "an allegation of a pattern of racketeering activity" apply to inchoate ORICO charges under ORS 166.720(4)	The state argued subsection (6) does not apply to inchoate charges; it targets completed patterns and thus the amended indictment was sufficient	Defendant argued subsection (6) applies to any allegation of a pattern, including conspiracies/attempts, so the state had to plead each predicate act with particularity	Court held plain text and context require subsection (6) to apply to any allegation of a pattern, including ORS 166.720(4) inchoate charges; indictment was deficient and conviction reversed

State v. Kincaid, 78 Or. App. 23 (Or. Ct. App.) (requires particularity in pleading predicate offenses for a pattern of racketeering activity)
State v. Romig, 73 Or. App. 780 (Or. Ct. App.) (upheld pleading predicate acts as separate, particularized allegations)
State v. Fair, 326 Or. 485 (Or. 1998) (addressed pleading of distinguishing characteristics tying predicate acts; relevant to legislative response)
PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or. 606 (Or. 1993) (framework for statutory interpretation)
State v. Gaines, 346 Or. 160 (Or. 2009) (statutory-interpretation methodology)
State v. Adams, 91 Or. App. 24 (Or. Ct. App.) (discussed conspiracy pleading under general conspiracy statute; distinguished)
State v. Wimber, 315 Or. 103 (Or. 1993) (indictment must allege essential elements of the offense)
State v. Burnett, 185 Or. App. 409 (Or. Ct. App.) (standard for reviewing demurrer and material element analysis)