N.C.P.I.—Civil 814.42

“Was the plaintiff [injured] [damaged] by the [defendant’s]

[defendants’] [conduct of] [participation in] any enterprise through a

pattern of racketeering activity?”1

The burden of proof on this issue is on the plaintiff. This means

that the plaintiff must prove, by the greater weight of the evidence, six

things2:

First, that the [defendant] [defendants] directly or indirectly

[conducted] [participated in] an enterprise.

“Enterprise” means any person, sole proprietorship, partnership,

corporation, business trust, union chartered under the laws of this State,

or other legal entity; or any unchartered union, association or group of

individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity. It includes a

governmental entity, and an entity formed or operated for a legal purpose

as well as an entity formed or operated for an illicit or illegal purpose.3

Second, that the enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering

activity.

“Racketeering activity” means to [commit] [attempt to commit]

[[solicit] [coerce] [intimidate] another person to commit] [an act] [acts]

which would be chargeable by indictment for (state crime(s)).4

“Pattern of racketeering activity” means engaging in at least two

incidents of racketeering activity that have the same or similar purposes,

results, accomplices, victims, or methods of commission or otherwise are

interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated and

unrelated incidents, provided at least one of such incidents occurred after

October 1, 1986, and that at least one other of such incidents occurred

within a four-year period of time of the other, excluding any periods of

imprisonment, after the commission of a prior incident of racketeering

activity.

Third, that at least one of the incidents of racketeering activity

involved something other than mail fraud, wire fraud or fraud in the sale

of securities.5

Fourth, that as a result of such racketeering activity, the plaintiff

suffered [injury] [damage] to his [business] [property].6

Fifth, that the [defendant] [defendants] obtained pecuniary gain as

a result of the racketeering activity.

And Sixth, that the plaintiff is an innocent person.7

If you find, by the greater weight of the evidence, that the

[defendant] [defendants] directly or indirectly [conducted] [participated

in] an enterprise, that the enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering

activity, that at least one of the incidents of racketeering activity

involved something other than mail fraud, wire fraud or fraud in the sale

of securities, that as a result of such racketeering activity, the plaintiff

suffered [injury] [damage] to his [business] [property], that the

[defendant] [defendants] obtained pecuniary gain as a result of the

racketeering activity, and that the plaintiff is an innocent person, then it

would be your duty to answer this issue “Yes,” in favor of the plaintiff. If

you do not so find, then it would be your duty to answer this issue “No,”

in favor of the defendant [defendants].