Opinion ID: 2190239
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Corrupt Organizations.

Text: Appellants next contend that the evidence was insufficient to convict them of the charge of corrupt organizations. 18 Pa.C.S. § 911. We agree. Initially, the Appellee argues that this issue was waived on appeal for Appellants' failure to brief and argue the point on post-verdict motions and before the Superior Court. This argument must fail. A review of the post-verdict motions, as well as the opinion of the trial court and the memorandum of the Superior Court, indicates that the issue was raised and addressed sufficiently below and is therefore properly before us now. In order to be convicted of corrupt organizations, 18 Pa.C.S. § 911, as charged, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Appellants had violated the provisions of § 911(b)(2) or (3). Section 911(b)(2) provides that: It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise. Subsection (3) provides: It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity. As Appellee correctly points out, the relevant definitions are found at § 911(h)(4) and (1). Section 911(h)(4), Pattern of racketeering activity, refers to a course of conduct requiring two or more acts of racketeering activity, one of which occurred after the effective date of the section. (Emphasis added). Section 911(h)(1) defines racketeering activity as: (i) any act which is indictable under any of the following provisions of this title: