Court Opinion

ID: 9791966
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:21:12.625226+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:39.843811
License: Public Domain

RIGGS, J.,
specially concurring.
I agree with the majority’s result in affirming defendant’s conviction for violating the Oregon Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (ORICO). It holds that the trial court did not err in failing to give defendant’s requested instruction defining “enterprise” under the statute, because the proffered instruction is not a correct statement of the law. Although I agree that the defendant’s instruction is not a correct statement of the law, I would also hold that it is not necessary for the state to prove an ongoing organization in order to establish the existence of an enterprise. ORS 166.715(2) provides, in pertinent part, that an “ ‘[enterprise’ includes any individual, sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation, business trust or other profit or nonprofit legal entity * * (Emphasis supplied.) An individual is “a single human being as contrasted with a social group or institution.” Webster's Third International Dictionary 1152 (1976).
We do not need to create a definition of “enterprise” that requires that the term “individual” be given a highly specialized gloss. We have no indication that the legislature intended either “individual” or “enterprise” to be so circumscribed. We should apply the principle of statutory construction that words of common usage should be given their common meaning. Perez v. State Farm Mutual Ins. Co., 289 Or 295, 299, 613 P2d 32 (1980). The legislature enacted ORICO as a tool to prosecute organized crime, even criminal enterprises *508organized and operated by only one person. An individual who knowingly buys and sells stolen goods, but never buys or sells goods more than once from the same person, would be within the scope of ORICO.
As I understand Judge Edmonds’ and Judge Graber’s analysis, that conduct would not be covered by ORICO. Although it is possible that ORICO, as I read it, might permit the conviction of an individual recidivist, the plain meaning of the word “individual” in the statute suggests that that possibility was within the contemplation of the legislature when it enacted this crime-fighting tool.
For these reasons I concur.