Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 53 — CRIMES · Chapter 949c — Corrupt Organizations and Racketeering Activity Act
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53-396 (2026)

Charging of incidents of racketeering activity. Sentencing on separately charged offense

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(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.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2015–2018 · leading case: State v. Bush, 157 A.3d 586 (Conn. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Bush, 157 A.3d 586 (Conn. 2017). · cites it 22× “This certified appeal presents two significant issues, namely: (1) whether a court, in determining if sufficient evidence of an enterprise exists to sustain a conviction of racketeering in violation of the Corrupt Organizations and Racketeering Activity Act (CORA), General…”
State v. Bush, 178 A.3d 392 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018). · cites it 2× “rcotics and racketeering based upon his alleged involvement in all seven such alleged sales, as specially pleaded both in the conspiracy count, as overt acts in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy, and in the *112 racketeering count, as incidents of racketeering activity…”
State v. Anderson, 118 A.3d 728 (Conn. App. Ct. 2015). · cites it 2× “11 Although the initial guilty verdicts on the lesser included offenses of negligent homicide (count one) and misconduct with a motor vehicle (count two) were arguably ‘‘mutually exclusive convictions,’’ the defendant has not challenged the verdicts on this ground.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.