N.C.P.I.—Civil 814.44

“Did the [defendant] [defendants] attempt

[to engage in a pattern of racketeering activity]

[to, [through a pattern of racketeering activity] [through proceeds

derived from a pattern of racketeering activities],

[acquire] [maintain], directly or indirectly, any

[interest in] [control of] any

[enterprise] [real property] [personal property of

any nature, including money]]

[to, through a pattern of racketeering activity, [conduct] [participate

in], directly or indirectly, any enterprise]?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, five

things:

First, that the [defendant] [defendants] attempted to

[engage in a pattern of racketeering activity]

[,[through a pattern of racketeering activities] [through proceeds

derived from a pattern of racketeering activities],

[acquire] [maintain], directly or indirectly, any

[interest in] [control of] any

[enterprise] [real property] [personal property of

any nature, including money]]

[, through a pattern of racketeering activity, [conduct] [participate

in], directly or indirectly, any enterprise].

An attempt is the performance of an act which was designed to

bring about (state crime) [but which fell short of the completed offense]

[and which in the ordinary and likely course of things the defendant would

have completed the crime had the defendant not been stopped or

prevented from completing the defendant’s apparent course of action].2

(Mere preparation or mere planning is not enough to constitute such an

attempt. But the act need not be the last act required to complete the

crime.)

“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)).3

“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.

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

[involved] [would have involved] an act other than mail fraud, wire fraud

or fraud in the sale of securities.4

Third, that as a result of such attempt, the plaintiff suffered [injury]

[damage] to his [business] [property].5

Fourth, that the [defendant] [defendants] attempted to obtain

pecuniary gain.

And Fifth, that the plaintiff is an innocent person.6

Finally, as to this issue on which the plaintiff has the burden of

proof, if you find, by the greater weight of the evidence, that the

[defendant] [defendants] attempted

[to engage in a pattern of racketeering activity]

[to, [through a pattern of racketeering activity] [through proceeds

derived from a pattern of racketeering activities],

[acquire] [maintain], directly or indirectly, any

[interest in] [control of] any

[enterprise] [real property] [personal property of

any nature, including money]

[to, through a pattern of racketeering activity, [conduct] [participate

in], directly or indirectly, any enterprise],

that at least one of the incidents of racketeering activity [involved]

[would have involved] something other than mail fraud, wire fraud, or

fraud in the sale of securities,

that as a result of such attempt, the plaintiff suffered [injury]

[damage] to his [business] [property],

that the [defendant] [defendants] attempted to obtain pecuniary

gain, 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].