In Case Alleging Pattern of Corrupt Activity, What is Proper Jury Instruction for Defining "Enterprise"?
State of Ohio v. De'Argo Griffin, Case nos. 2013-1129 and 2013-1319
Second District Court of Appeals (Montgomery County)
ISSUE: In a trial alleging that a defendant has engaged in a pattern of corrupt activity, is an instruction to the jury sufficient to convey the law on the meaning of "enterprise" when the instruction states the elements of the offense, provides the statutory definitions of "enterprise" and "pattern of corrupt activity," and informs the jury that it has to find both beyond a reasonable doubt?
Editor's Note: The Supreme Court determined that a conflict exists between two appellate districts on this issue and ordered that the certified-conflict case (2013-1319) be consolidated with an appeal from the state (2013-1129) for oral arguments.