(a) In any information charging a violation of this chapter, the state shall allege the existence of a pattern of racketeering activity based upon at least two incidents of racketeering activity, which shall be specified in such information. The state may, where otherwise permitted by law, individually charge in separate counts of the same information or by indictment any offense notwithstanding that such offense may also constitute an incident of racketeering activity specified in the count charging a violation of this chapter. Any information charging a violation of this chapter shall also indicate whether, and to what extent, the state alleges that any property of the defendant is subject to forfeiture under this chapter.
(b) In any prosecution under this chapter the court or the jury, as the case may be, shall indicate by special verdict the particular incidents of racketeering activity that it finds to have been proved by the state beyond a reasonable doubt.
(c) In any prosecution under this chapter, the court shall impose a separate sentence on any separately charged offense of which the defendant has been found guilty notwithstanding that the offense also constitutes an incident of racketeering activity under that portion of the information charging a violation of this chapter. Any term of imprisonment imposed on the separately charged offense shall, in the discretion of the court, run either concurrently or consecutively with respect to the sentence imposed on the count charging a violation of this chapter, as provided in section 53a-27, except, in the case in which such separately charged offense constitutes a violation of section 53-202, 53-206, 53a-211 or 53a-212, such sentences shall run consecutively.
(P.A. 82-343, S. 4; July Sp. Sess. P.A. 94-2, S. 9.)
History: July Sp. Sess. P.A. 94-2 amended Subsec. (c) to add exception requiring consecutive sentences when the separately charged offense constitutes a violation of Sec. 53-202, 53-206, 53a-211 or 53a-212.
Cited. 229 C. 479. The special verdict provision does not require that the jury's finding as to the existence of an enterprise to be based solely on the evidence concerning the predicate incidents of racketeering activity specified in the special verdict that the jury has found to constitute the pattern of racketeering; the jury and a reviewing court may consider the entire record in determining whether the state has proven the existence of an enterprise. 325 C. 272.
Copyright ©2024 LegalFix. All rights reserved. LegalFix is not a law firm, is not licensed to practice law, and does not provide legal advice, services, or representation. The information on this website is an overview of the legal plans you can purchase—or that may be provided by your employer as an employee benefit or by your credit union or other membership group as a membership benefit.
LegalFix provides its members with easy access to affordable legal services through a network of independent law firms. LegalFix, its corporate entity, and its officers, directors, employees, agents, and contractors do not provide legal advice, services, or representation—directly or indirectly.
The articles and information on the site are not legal advice and should not be relied upon—they are for information purposes only. You should become a LegalFix member to get legal services from one of our network law firms.
You should not disclose confidential or potentially incriminating information to LegalFix—you should only communicate such information to your network law firm.
The benefits and legal services described in the LegalFix legal plans are not always available in all states or with all plans. See the legal plan Benefit Overview and the more comprehensive legal plan contract during checkout for coverage details in your state.
Use of this website, the purchase of legal plans, and access to the LegalFix networks of law firms are subject to the LegalFix Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.