Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 18-7803 (2026)
Definitions.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Definitions.
As used in this chapter:
(a) "Racketeering" means any act which is chargeable or indictable under the following sections of the Idaho Code or which are equivalent acts chargeable or indictable as equivalent crimes under the laws of any other jurisdiction:
(1) Homicide (section 18-4001, Idaho Code);
(2) Robbery, burglary, theft, forgery, counterfeiting, and related crimes (sections 18-1401, 18-1405, 18-2403, 18-2407, 18-3123, 18-3124, 18-3125, 18-3601, 18-3602, 18-3603, 18-3605, 18-3606, 18-3607, 18-3609, 18-3610, 18-3614, 18-3615, 18-4630, 18-6501 and 49-518, Idaho Code);
(3) Kidnapping (section 18-4501, Idaho Code);
(4) Commercial sexual activity (sections 18-5601, 18-5602, 18-5603, 18-5604, 18-5605, 18-5606, 18-5607, 18-5608 and 18-5609, Idaho Code);
(7) Lotteries and gambling (sections 18-3801, 18-3802, 18-3809, 18-4902, 18-4903, 18-4904, 18-4905, 18-4906 and 18-4908, Idaho Code);
(8) Indecency and obscenity (sections 18-1515, 18-1518, 18-4103, 18-4103A, 18-4104, 18-4105, 18-4105A and 18-4107, Idaho Code);
(10) Fraudulent practices, false pretenses, insurance fraud, financial transaction card crimes and fraud generally (sections 18-2403, 18-2706, 18-3002, 18-3101, 18-3124, 18-3125, 18-3126, 18-6713, 41-293, 41-294 and 41-1306, Idaho Code);
(11) Alcoholic beverages (sections 23-602, 23-606, 23-610, 23-703, 23-905, 23-914, 23-928, 23-934 and 23-938, Idaho Code);
(13) Securities (sections 30-14-401, 30-14-402, 30-14-403, 30-14-404, 30-14-501, 30-14-502, 30-14-505 and 30-14-506, Idaho Code);
(14) Horseracing (section 54-2512, Idaho Code);
(16) Corporations (sections 18-1901, 18-1902, 18-1903, 18-1904, 18-1905, 18-1906 and 30-1510, Idaho Code);
(19) Controlled substances (sections 37-2732(a), (b), (c), (e) and (f), 37-2732B, 37-2734 and 37-2734B, Idaho Code);
(21) Terrorism (section 18-8103, Idaho Code).
(b) "Person" means any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property;
(c) "Enterprise" means any sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation, business, labor union, association or other legal entity or any group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity, and includes illicit as well as licit entities; and
(d) "Pattern of racketeering activity" means engaging in at least two (2) incidents of racketeering conduct that have the same or similar intents, results, accomplices, victims or methods of commission, or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated incidents, provided at least one (1) of such incidents occurred after the effective date of this act and that the last of such incidents occurred within five (5) years after a prior incident of racketeering conduct.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1989–2025 · leading case: State v. Hoyle, 99 P.3d 1069 (Idaho 2004).
State v. Hoyle, 99 P.3d 1069 (Idaho 2004). “Idaho Code § 18-7803 (2) & (10). Applying the Blockburger test, each of the alleged predicate acts is the same for double jeopardy purposes as the racketeering charge because the predicate acts do not require proof of any fact not necessary to the racketeering charge.”
Mannos v. Moss, 155 P.3d 1166 (Idaho 2007). “” “Racketeering” means any act chargeable under the enumerated list of predicate acts in Idaho Code § 18-7803 (a)(1) — (21). Idaho Code § 18-7804 (c) provides: It is unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise to conduct or participate, directly or…”
State v. Beard, 22 P.3d 116 (Idaho Ct. App. 2001). “97-612 with racketeering, I.C. § 18-7803; issuing an insufficient funds check, I.”
State v. Hansen, 877 P.2d 898 (Idaho 1994). “I.C. § 18-7803(a)(20). On appeal, Hansen contends that the evidence is insufficient to establish the existence of an “enterprise” within the meaning of the Racketeering Act.”
State v. Gertsch, 49 P.3d 392 (Idaho 2002). “diction: (13) Securities (sections 30-1403, 30-1403A, 30-1404, 30-1405, 30-1406, 30-1438 and 30-1439, Idaho Code); I.C. § 18-7803(a). Because we affirm Gertsch’s securities convictions under I.”
Hoyle v. Ada Cnty., 501 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2007). “7 There was no dispute that Hoyle qualified as a “person,” see Idaho Code Ann. § 18-7803 (b), and that Hoyle Insurance qualified as an “enterprise.”
Spence v. Howell, 890 P.2d 714 (Idaho 1995). “The Spences did not plead a federal violation of the racketeering statutes in their complaint, or at any time below, and we therefore do not consider that aspect of their claim on review.”
State v. Nunez, 981 P.2d 738 (Idaho 1999). “With respect to Count I of the indictment, did the state charge a proper racketeering “enterprise” under I.C. § 18-7803 and was the jury correctly instructed on the definition of conducting an enterprise? 2.”
Yoakum v. Hartford Fire Ins., 923 P.2d 416 (Idaho 1996). “The Yoakums' cause of action for Hartford's alleged pattern of racketeering activity must also fail since the Yoakums' racketeering claim apparently is predicated completely upon Hartford's single action of employing Thompson in violation of the bribery and corrupt influences…”
Fort Wayne Books, Inc. v. Indiana, 489 U.S. 46 (1989). “§ 16-14-3 (3) (A)(xii) (1988); Idaho Code § 18-7803 (8) (Supp. 1988); N.”
Eliopulos v. Knox, 848 P.2d 984 (Idaho Ct. App. 1992). “6 A “pattern of racketeering activity” means engaging in at least two incidents of racketeering conduct, such as fraud, “that have the same or similar intents, results, accomplices, victims or methods of commission, or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics…”
State v. Montgomery, 17 P.3d 292 (Idaho 2001). “Lon Eugene Montgomery appeals from an entry of a conditional plea and judgment for racketeering in violation of Idaho Code § 18-7803 . Montgomery asserts the district court incorrectly found that the Idaho Securities Act does not require an intent to defraud or deceive in order…”
— Idaho Code § 18-7803(20) — 1 case
State v. Ybarra, 830 P.2d 522 (Idaho Ct. App. 1992).
— Idaho Code § 18-7803(a) — 1 case
State v. Gertsch, 49 P.3d 392 (Idaho 2002). “diction: (13) Securities (sections 30-1403, 30-1403A, 30-1404, 30-1405, 30-1406, 30-1438 and 30-1439, Idaho Code); I.C. § 18-7803(a). Because we affirm Gertsch’s securities convictions under I.”
— Idaho Code § 18-7803(a)(10) — 1 case
Mannos v. Moss, 155 P.3d 1166 (Idaho 2007). “” “Racketeering” means any act chargeable under the enumerated list of predicate acts in Idaho Code § 18-7803 (a)(1) — (21). Idaho Code § 18-7804 (c) provides: It is unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise to conduct or participate, directly or…”
— Idaho Code § 18-7803(a)(13) — 1 case
Zazzali v. Ellison, 973 F. Supp. 2d 1187 (D. Idaho 2013).
— Idaho Code § 18-7803(a)(16) — 1 case
Mannos v. Moss, 155 P.3d 1166 (Idaho 2007). “” “Racketeering” means any act chargeable under the enumerated list of predicate acts in Idaho Code § 18-7803 (a)(1) — (21). Idaho Code § 18-7804 (c) provides: It is unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise to conduct or participate, directly or…”
— Idaho Code § 18-7803(a)(2) — 1 case
State v. Hoyle, 99 P.3d 1069 (Idaho 2004). “Idaho Code § 18-7803 (2) & (10). Applying the Blockburger test, each of the alleged predicate acts is the same for double jeopardy purposes as the racketeering charge because the predicate acts do not require proof of any fact not necessary to the racketeering charge.”
— Idaho Code § 18-7803(a)(20) — 1 case
State v. Hansen, 877 P.2d 898 (Idaho 1994). “I.C. § 18-7803(a)(20). On appeal, Hansen contends that the evidence is insufficient to establish the existence of an “enterprise” within the meaning of the Racketeering Act.”
— Idaho Code § 18-7803(c) — 4 cases
Mannos v. Moss, 155 P.3d 1166 (Idaho 2007). “” “Racketeering” means any act chargeable under the enumerated list of predicate acts in Idaho Code § 18-7803 (a)(1) — (21). Idaho Code § 18-7804 (c) provides: It is unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise to conduct or participate, directly or…”
State v. Hansen, 877 P.2d 898 (Idaho 1994). “I.C. § 18-7803(a)(20). On appeal, Hansen contends that the evidence is insufficient to establish the existence of an “enterprise” within the meaning of the Racketeering Act.”
State v. Nunez, 981 P.2d 738 (Idaho 1999). “With respect to Count I of the indictment, did the state charge a proper racketeering “enterprise” under I.C. § 18-7803 and was the jury correctly instructed on the definition of conducting an enterprise? 2.”
Van Hook v. State of Idaho (D. Idaho 2019).
— Idaho Code § 18-7803(d) — 8 cases
Spence v. Howell, 890 P.2d 714 (Idaho 1995). “The Spences did not plead a federal violation of the racketeering statutes in their complaint, or at any time below, and we therefore do not consider that aspect of their claim on review.”
State v. Gertsch, 49 P.3d 392 (Idaho 2002). “diction: (13) Securities (sections 30-1403, 30-1403A, 30-1404, 30-1405, 30-1406, 30-1438 and 30-1439, Idaho Code); I.C. § 18-7803(a). Because we affirm Gertsch’s securities convictions under I.”
State v. Hoyle, 99 P.3d 1069 (Idaho 2004). “Idaho Code § 18-7803 (2) & (10). Applying the Blockburger test, each of the alleged predicate acts is the same for double jeopardy purposes as the racketeering charge because the predicate acts do not require proof of any fact not necessary to the racketeering charge.”
State v. Hansen, 877 P.2d 898 (Idaho 1994). “I.C. § 18-7803(a)(20). On appeal, Hansen contends that the evidence is insufficient to establish the existence of an “enterprise” within the meaning of the Racketeering Act.”
Mannos v. Moss, 155 P.3d 1166 (Idaho 2007). “” “Racketeering” means any act chargeable under the enumerated list of predicate acts in Idaho Code § 18-7803 (a)(1) — (21). Idaho Code § 18-7804 (c) provides: It is unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise to conduct or participate, directly or…”
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.