State v. Walker, 252 Or. App. 1

Defendant was convicted after a jury trial of racketeering under ORS 166.720(3) and theft in the first degree for three Safeway shopliftings.
The racketeering charge was based on a Seaside theft and two prior Sandy Safeway thefts (all involving defendant and Williams).
Defendant moved for judgment of acquittal (MJOA) arguing the state failed to prove an ORICO enterprise; the court denied the MJOA.
The trial court instructed the jury on enterprise per Cheek (verbatim, focusing on an ongoing, organized enterprise).
On appeal, defendant challenged the sufficiency of proof of an enterprise; the majority affirmed, applying Cheek and related doctrine to show an ongoing informal partnership.
The dissent argued the evidence did not demonstrate a true enterprise or sense of organization distinct from the predicate acts and would reverse.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the state proved an ORICO enterprise	Cheek framework supports an informal partnership as enterprise	No ongoing organization; acts ad hoc	Yes, sufficient to infer an ongoing enterprise

State v. Cheek, 100 Or App 501 (1990) (outlined enterprise includes ongoing organization, however loose, distinct from individual acts)
State v. Pierce, 153 Or App 569 (1998) (enterprise can be separate from acts; law office example)
Turkette, 452 U.S. 576 (1981) (enterprise and pattern may coalesce; proof may support both elements)
Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938 (2009) (enterprise requires structure; three features; gloss on association-in-fact)
Cheek (lead opinion cited), 100 Or App 501 (1990) (lead formulation for enterprise remains controlling in this case)