His argument, however, remains unavailing. Even assuming that the facts as defendant portrays them are insufficient to establish the loose association in fact that the law describes, the fact is that the evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the state , shows that the law office did exist as a functioning business entity separate from the acts of defendant individually. Those lawyers sent written communications on firm letterhead, that listed them as members or associates of the firm. The lawyers shared telephones, ran advertisements under the firm name, and maintained joint general and client trust accounts. We conclude that the trial court did not err in concluding that the state had offered evidence sufficient to establish that defendant had committed the predicate acts charged through the enterprise of his law office.
Defendant asserts a number of additional assignments of error.
We have considered each of them carefully and reject them without further discussion. The indictment listed 12 other predicate acts, involving similar conduct on behalf of clients other than Burnette. The trial court granted judgments of acquittal on some of those, and the jury was unable to reach a verdict on the others. Return to previous location .