I N THE COURT OF CRI MI NAL

APPEAL S OF TENN ESSEE A T K N O X V ILLE 

### Ja nuary 27, 200 4 S es sio n

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. GE ORG E A R V IL VANCE & VINCENT VANCE

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Sulli van Coun ty Nos. S43,074; S43,075 Phyllis H. Miller, Judge

No. E2003-00110-CC A-R3- CD April 8, 2004

A Sullivan Count y

jury convicted the Def

endant s , Geor g e A. Vance a nd Vincent Va nce, of ag g ravated g ambling pr omotion for operating twenty -nine Free Spin machines in B ristol. The trial
court sente nced D efe ndant Geor g e A. Vanc e to two y ear s of supervised probation followed by four
y ear s of unsupervised probation and order ed him to make r estitution i n the amount of $130,521.00. The court sentenc ed Def

endant Vincent Vanc e to one y ear of supervised probation followed by one y e ar o f u ns up e rv ise d p ro ba tio n. On app e a l, the De fend a nts c on te ndthat: ( 1) the e vid e nc e is insufficient to support the ir convictions beca use there was no e vidence that they knowing ly

eng ag ed in a g ambling e nterprise and the Free Spin machines wer e not p ri n ci p ally desig ned as g ambling device s; (2) the trial c ourt abused its discre tion by prohibiting the Defe ndants from introducing the testimonyof a patent attorney conce rning the issuance of a patent on the Fr ee Spin machine ; and (3) the trial court abused its discretion by pro h i b iting the De fenda nts from introducing evidenc e

c on c e rn ing c omp ara

ble pr od uc ts, g a me s a nd pr omo tio ns sim ila r to the play on the Free Spin

ma c hin e s. F ind ing no re ve rs ibl e e rr or , w e a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ou rt ’s jud g me nts

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nts of

the Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed

R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which G AR Y R. W ADE , P.J
., and A L AN E. G L EN N , J ., joined.

David C. Crocke tt and L isa D. Rice, Eliz abethton, Tenne ssee, for the a ppellants, Geor g e A. Va nce and Vince nt Vance

. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral a nd Reporter ; Michael Moore , Soli ci tor Gene ral; Da vid H. Findley , Assistant Attorney Gene ral; H. Gr eele y

Wells, J r., District Attorney Gene ral; and Robert Montgome ry , Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

. Opin ion I. F acts

This case involves the convi ct i o n s of the De fenda nts for ag g ravated g ambling pr omotionT he p at ent fo r t he m achi ne at i ss ue i n t hi s case s t at es t hat t he nam e o f t he m achi ne i s “Co l l ect o r Ca rd/Fun 1
C ar d D i s pens i ng Sy s t em wi t h Promo t i onal Fr ee Spi n, Fr ee D r aw G ame Feat ur e. ” W e wi l l r ef er t o t he machi nes as Fr ee Sp i n m achi nes i n t hi s o p i ni o n.

-2- afte r the De fenda nts were found to have operated twenty -nine Fr ee Spin mac hines in nine Bristol 1 locations from Aug ust of 1998 to J une of 1999. The following evidenc e wa s prese nted at the Def endants’ trial. The parties stipulated that Vincent Vanc e is the son of Ge org e A. Va nce and that the y bo th we re g e ne ra l partne rs in Ea st Te nn e sse e Ve nd ing a nd Am us e me nt, LL C, b e tw e e n A ug us t of 1998 and June 10, 1999. The pa rties furthe r stipulated t hat East Te nnessee Vending and Amus e me n t o w n e d tw e n ty

- n in e F r e e Sp in v e n d in g ma c h in e s a n d p la c e d th e ma c h in e s in nine

e s t ab l i s h m e n t s i n B r i s t o l

. O f f i c e r s o f t h e B r i s t o l T e n n e s s e e P o l i c e D e p ar t m e n ts e i z e d t h e t w e n t ynine machine s on J une 10, 1999.

Thelma Trivette testified that she play ed a Fr ee Spin mac hine at an e stablishment in Bristol by inserting money

into the machine a nd rec eiving a sports collec tor’s car d for e ach dollar that she inserted. Trivette explained that she play ed the Free S p in machine a nd “g ot cre dits up to t wo hu nd re d p oin ts a ndre c e ive d te n d oll ars ” fr om the c a sh ie r. She state d th a t th e c a sh ie r “ g ot the c re dit s off of the m achine ,” asked her to sign a document, pa id her the te n dollars and then a sked her for the baseba ll cards ba ck. She re ported that she ha d collecte d baseba ll cards in the past and that the c ards sh e re c e ive d f

ro m pl a y ing the F re e Spi n ma c hin e we re no t wo rth ke e pin g

. Trive tte te sti fi e d th a t a member of h e r

f a mi ly lo s t $ 5 0 0 p lay in g th e F r e e Sp in ma c h in e s , s o s h e c o n ta c te d th e B r is tol Tenne ssee Police De partment c oncerning the machines in the spring of 1999.

Trive tte state d th a t sh e a g re e d to wor k with the po lic e de pa

rt me nt by play ing the F re e Spi n machines l o ca t ed at various establishments in Bristol. She ex plained that the police department ag ree d to pay

her $50 e very

time she won m oney on the machine s, and she would use the money that po lic e of fi c e rs g a ve he r t o p la y

on the ma c hin e s. Trive tte e xpla ine d that sh e play e d th e F re e Spi n machines a nd won money at five diff ere nt establishments in Bristol betwee n May 19, 1999, and June 7, 1999. She stated that the ca shiers would cle ar out he r cr edits on the machine s after she re deeme d her c redits for c ash. Trive tte testified that she ofte n returne d the baseba ll c ards to the cashie rs when she re deeme d her credits. She then demonst rate d how t he Free Spin machine worke d by play ing the machine in the c ourtroom. On cr oss-examination, Trivette testified that the Free Sp in mac h ines wer e located in public a

rea s of the various establishments so any body could play

them. She stated that sh e ne ve r r e a d th e ru le s p os te d n e xt to the ma c hin e s, rathe r s he jus t pl a y e d th e ma c hin e s.

Bla ine Wade, a c aptain w it hthe B ristol Tennessee Police Depa rtment, testified that, pursua nt to a sea rch w arr ant, he a nd sever al offic ers se ized the twenty -nine Free Spin machines from va rious establishments in Br i s t o l o n J une 10, 1999. He reported that the mac hines containe d money and sports car ds in them when the police seized them. Captain Wade stated that of fice rs found seve ral hundred “ promotional claim forms” that play ers of the mac h i n es wo u l d fill out and sign whe n

“ c a sh ing ou t.” He re po rt e d tha t off ic e rs a lso fo un d tw o p a ds of “ pr omo tio na l g a me play

vo uc he rs ” that play ers c ould fill out and send awa y for a fre e play on a Free Spin machine. He e x plained that the “ pr omo tio na l c la im f orms” a ndthe vo uc he rs fo r a fr e e g a me c on ta ine d the a dd re ss o f E a st-3-

Tenne ssee Ve nding a nd Amusement Company . Captain W ad e testi fied that off icer s also found

se ve ra l hu nd re d s po rt s c ard s th a t w e re us e d in the ma c hin e s.

On cr oss-examination, Captain W ade sta ted that he could not r eca ll talking with Defe ndant Geor g e A. Va nce a

bout the leg ality

of the Free Spin machi nes bef ore the police investig ated the Def endants a nd t h ei r m achine s. He e x plained that De fenda nt Georg e A. Vance disc ussed the

ma c hin e s wi th th e dis tr ic t a tto rn e y ’s of fi c e du ri ng the po lic e inv e sti g a tio n o f the De fe nd a nts

. Captain Wade testified that the Free Spin machines dispensed a baseba ll card for every

dollar inserted, a nd the machine s were labeled a s sports collector c ard ma chines a t the var i ous locations in B ri st ol

. He state d th a t a ny on e c ou ld s e nda way fo r a fr e e g a me a ndthe n p la y the F re e Spi n machine f or fr ee, but he did not know of any body who obtained a

fre e g ame. Capta in Wade testified that some of the mac hines had a g old sticker on the f ront of them that indicate d that they wer e

re g ist e re d w ith the Sta te of Te nn e sse e a ndta xeda s v e nd ing ma c hin e s.

The De fenda nts sought to ca ll Mark Patterson, a patent attorney with Wadde y & Patter son in Nas h v il le
, to te s ti f

y a s a n e xp e r t in p a te n t la w th a t th e F r e e Sp in ma c h in e s w e r e p a te nted as

“ ve nd ing ma c hin e s” a ndno t “ g a min g ma c hin e s. ” Th e Sta te ob je c te d to the te sti mon y

a s ir re le va nt,

a ndthe tr ia l c ou rt

su sta ine d th e ob

je c tio n, statin g , “ I

fi ndthat it ’s ir

re le va nt w he the r o r n ot the re is a pate nt. I t’s irrele vant what y ou call a ma chine. I t’s irrele vant how y ou describe a machine in a n abstrac t on a patent . . . . It’s how the mac hine works . . . a nd it’s how it’s used . . . .”

The De fenda nts then made an offe r of proof of Patterson’s testimony

out of the pre sence of the jury . Patte rs on state d th a t he su bmi tte d a pa te nt a pp lic a tio n o n b e ha lf of Ke ith he fl in o f Wo rl d of Ga mes, LL C, for the Free Spin machine. He testified t hat t he name of t he machine on the patent is “ Col le c tor

Card /F un CardDi sp e ns ing Sy ste m w ith Pr omo tio na l F re e Spi n, F re e Draw Ga me Fe ature .” Patterson e x plained that, af ter a n initial rejection by the U.S

. Patent and Trademar k Offic e, Hef lin rece ived the pate nt for the Free Spin machine on April 10, 2001. On c ross-examination, Patterson stated that the descriptive title g iven t o an invention i s cre ated by the applica nt, not by

the pa te nt o ff ic e . H e e xpla ine d th a t “ the pa te nt s imp ly de sc ri be s th a t th e re is a

g a me that y ou c a n c ho os e to play afte r y ou purcha se t he card. The patent is not li mited to any particula r ra ng e of prizes that might be w on as a c onsequenc e of pla y i n g t h at g ame.” Patterson stated that the Free Spin patent require s that the cards di spensed have some va lue to them. He e x plained that the Free Spin machine

w a s u n i q u e b e c a u s e i tc o m b i n e d t h e p u r c h a s e o f a s p o r t s c ar dw i t h t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o p l a y a promotional g ame a fter the purcha se. Patterson e x plained that Heflin wanted the Fr ee Spin machine to b e a le g a l non- g a mbl ing ma c hin e so he c ou ld g e t a pat e nt on it and“ ha ve so me mon op oly ri g hts in the marke t.” Patterson stated tha t “[t] here are lots of ga mbling mac hines out there. [ Hef lin] couldn’t g et a patent on a g ambling ma chine.” He testified that he did not study the g ambling la ws of Te nn e sse e to d e te rm ine wh e the r the F re e Spi n ma c hin e wa s le g a l un de r tho se la ws

.
Charles Thomas, a

detec tive with the Bristol Tenne ssee Police Depa rtment, testified that he participa ted in seizing some of the Fr ee Spin machines on J une 10, 1999. Detec tive Thomas stated that he saw Def

endant Vinc ent Vanc e per forming maintenanc e on a Free Spin machine when he and other police office rs ar

rived to seize the mac hines. He r eporte d that he saw De fenda nt Vincent-4-

Vanc e’s Jeep Cheroke e par ked beside one of the establishments with se vera l c ases of base ball car ds in th e rear hatch, a box of rec eipt books in the back se at and a leg al pad with name s of establishments and dollar f igur es in the fr ont passeng er se at. Detec tive Thomas testified that he

re turne d to the sto re , lo c a te d D e fe nd a nt V inc e nt V a nc e a ndtol d h im “ that I ne e de d to g e t int o h is

ve hic le , th a t I

be lie ve d th a t [th e c ard s a ndbu sin e ss r e c or ds we re ] ev ide nc e of a g a mbl ing e nte rp ri se that w e we re inv e sti g a tin g , a ndthat I wa s g oin g to s e ize it. ” He state d th a t he the n s e ize d th e c ard s, the re ceipt books and the leg al pad. De tective Thoma s stated that the re ceipt books co n t ai ned a “Collection Report” pa g e that had the establishment name on one line and Fre e S p i n m ac h ine on another and wa s signe d by

Def endant Vinc ent Vanc e. He reported that, when the other off icer s were moving the machines, he saw sever al sports car ds in the slots of the machines, on the f loor, under the machine s and behind the machines. Detec tive Thomas s tated that he noti ced that paper s entitled, “Free Spin, Free Dra w Off icial Rules,” we re taped t o some of the mac hines, and a banner posted on the wall above the machine s rea d “F REE DR AW,” “F REE SP I N,” “ I NSTANT CASH PRI Z ES,” “COLLECTORS C ARDS SOL D HERE” a nd “NO PURCHASE NECESSARY.”

On cr oss-examination, Detective Thoma s testified that he kne w Def endant Ge org e A. Va nce be c a us e he a ndDe te c tiv e Th oma s’ fathe r- in- la w w e re frie nd s. He e xpla ine d th a t he talk e d w ith Def endant Ge org e A. Vance about how the m achine s worke d, but Detec tive Thomas stated that he “expressed no opinion as to whether the m achine s are leg al or not.” The detective stated that he has
not i n v es t i g ated whe ther the Free Spin machines wer e re g istered with the State or whether the machines ha d tax s tamps on the front of the m.

Ronnie Houser, the manag er of L arry Nee ce’ s Southern Cards in B ristol, Vir g inia, testified

as an e x pert in the fie ld of th e v al u at i o n o f sports ca rds in the B ristol area . Houser sta ted that he examined the sports car ds that police seized on J une 10, 1999, in conne ction with the investigation of the De fe nd a nts . T he Sta te sh ow e d H ou se r b oxe s o f s po rt s car ds se ize d f ro m th e De fe nd a nts , including boxes of 1989 F leer baseba ll cards, 1987 Donr uss baseba ll car ds and 1990 P ro Set hocke y

car ds, and Houser explained that individual cards we re w orth various a mounts in J une of 1999. H e state d that mos t of the c ard s in the bo xes we re c omm on c ard s that we re wo rth abo ut fi ve to te n c e nts

e a c h. He sa id tha t g oo d p la y e r c a rd s, su c h a s K e n G ri ff

e y , Jr. , M ark

Mc Gu ir e or

B arry B on ds , w ou ld be wo rth mu c h mo re tha n th e c omm on c ard s. Ho us e r e xpla ine d th a t he so ld c omm on c ard s in his shop for no more than five c ents ea ch. House r t estified that, from the latter part of 1998 to the e nd of 1999, the sale s at his store wer e appr ox imately $16,000 to $18,000 per month.

On cr oss-examination, Houser t estified that “wa x packs” are fac tory seale d packs of car ds containing varying numbe rs of c ards within them, and the packs may contain more valuable c ards

as we ll as common car ds. He e x plained that buy ing a “wax pack” differ ed from g etting a ca rd fr om a vending machine be cause “[w]hen y ou’re filling up a ven ding ma chine, the pe rson filling it up knows exactly

what’s in ther e.” H ouser state d that baseba ll card companies often have pr omotional g a me s o n th e “ wa x pa c ks ” a s a n in c e nti ve to b uy the pa c ks

.

Al le n Phi lli ps , a fo re ns ic e xami ne r a nd c ry pt ana ly st f

or the Ra c ke te e ri ng Re c or ds An a ly sis Unit of the Fe dera l B ureau of I nvestig ation (“F BI ”), testified as an expert in the field of g ambling-5-

rec ords ana ly sis. Phill ips stated that he e x amined the twe nty -nine Free Spin machines seized by the police and de termined that they all worke d in the same manne r. He explained that ga mbling devic es have thr ee distinct cha

rac teristics: (1) c onsideration; (2) c hance ; and (3) rewa rd. Phill ips testified that, as a r acke teering r ecor ds analy st for the F BI , “we look at various indications on the mac hine

a s to ho w i t w a s d e sig ne d a ndbu ilt a ndwh a t f

e a tur e s it con tai ns ” to d e te rm ine wh e the r i t is a g ambling de vice.

Phill ips demonstrated how the Fr ee Spin mac hine worke d and testified that the ma chine use s an “e ight- liner g ame” which is “a very common g ame” that is used acr oss the country . He e x plained that “it’s a slot machine type of g ame. . . . [T]here ar e eig ht lines on which y o u can form winning combinations of icons . . . .” Phillips st ated that the Free Spin machine “shows y our winning combinations and the a mount of cre dits y ou would rec eive if y ou

. . . lined up those combinations on the eig ht-liner g ame.” He e x plained that a pla y er w ould sta rt play ing by inserting a $1, $5, $10 or $20 bill. He stated that, onc e a pla y er puts in the ca sh, the machine ejec ts one sports car d for

every dollar inserte d and g ives the play er twe nty cre dits for eve ry

dollar. Philli ps reported that, af ter ins e rt ing the c a sh , “y ou wo uld pla c e the a mou nt y ou wa nt to wa g e r on the ne xt play of

. . . th e e ig htliner g ame. And a s y ou press the c redits [butt on,] t he wa g er a mount meter . . . incre ases one for e ach tim e y ou pr e ss i t.” He state d that the min imu m a mou nt a play e r c a n b e t on a F re e Spi n ma c hin e “ is

e ig ht c re dit s o r f

orty c e nts ” pe r g a me , w hil e the ma ximum a mou nt a

play er can be t pe r g a me is eig hty cre dits or four dollars.

Phill ips ex plained, “O nce y ou’ve pla ced y our eig ht bets as a minimum[ ,] all t he lines ar e active so y ou have e ight way s of forming a winning combination on this machine. I n order to play it y ou press the start button.” He stated tha t pressing the s tart button “will beg in the ree l spinning[,] and [in] approximately

five sec onds . . . the machine will come to a re st . . . with the icon display ed in e a c h o f the ni ne wi nd ow s. ” He sa id tha t a c omp ute r p ro g ram w ith in the ma c hin e “ g e ne rate s a random number

that corr elates to one of the i co n s t hat ar e shown in ea ch of the se positions” and

“ pr od uc e s a

ra nd om o utc ome on y ou r s c re e n .

. . .” Phi lli ps e xpla ine d th a t:

Th e n .

. . the c omp ute r w ill e va luate wh a t ic on s a re on the sc re e n a nd det erm in e if

a ny of the lin e s ar e wi nn ing lin e s. I f the re ’s a wi nn ing lin e a s w e ha d h e re , a ba r i n

eac h window g oing dia g onally down from lef

t to right, that wa s a winning

c omb inatio n. At

the bo tto m w e ha ve a

. . . me ssa g e writt e n o n th e sc re e n “ y ou wi n ten cr edits.” So the pay

off f or a three bar combination is te n cre dits. And we ha d bet one cre dit o n th a t l in e

. So w e g o t p a idb a c k te n c r e d it s f

o r th e o n e b e t o n that line, we lost on the other se ven lines, so our total bet wa s eig ht c redits and we won te n c re dit s, so fo r the wh ole g a me we wo n tw o c re dit s.

He state d that, afte r winning the cr edits, the play er ma y take his or he r winning s by hitting the “ta

ke” button, and then t he machine m ay g o into a “bonus mode,” whe re the play er c an take “fr ee spins that don’t cost . . . any

cre dits.” He said that the play er c an take the cr edits that he or she wins during the bonus mode. Phill ips explained that, once a pl ay er reac hes t wo hundred cre dits or more, he or she

ma y “ c a sh ou t” a ndre c e ive fi ve c e nts fo r e a c h c re dit

.-6-

Phill ips testified that one of the c hara cteristics of a g ambling de vice is that a pla y er c an insert

mor e mon e y

in the ma c hin e tha n is re qu ir e d to play a g a me or bu y a n it e m. H e e xpla ine d th a t th is char acte ristic “is more a

feature of a

g ambling de vice than an amuseme nt device or a vending machine.” He state d that the Fr ee Spin machine is simil ar to a g ambling de vice be cause a play er c an ins e rt a ny a mou nt o f m on e y

a ndthe n w a g e r h is o r h e r c re dit s o n mu lti ple g a me s.

Phi lli ps te sti fi e d th a t a no the r c ha ra c te ri sti c of a gambl in g de vic e is tha t th e ma c hin e ha s a

se tti ng c a lle d a

“ [r]e te nti on ratio , in wh ic h th e op e rator of the de vic e c a n s e t it

fo r v arying a mou nts of wha t the machine w ill pay out, w hat the amount of winning s probability will be.” He stated that the F re e Spi n ma c hin e ha s r e d b utt on s in sid e the do or on the le ft sid e that allo w the op e rator a c c e ss to d if fe re nt s c re e ns on themon ito r t o a dju st the wi nn ing pr ob abil ity

. He e xpla ine d that the F re e Spi n machine was set to pay back fifty -five perc ent of the money put into the machine “ove r the long run of this machine.” Phil l i ps said that mecha nisms for setting the winning pr obability on machines

wer e “c ommon to any

slot machine in L as Ve g as . . . .” He stated that, on a typical slot machine at

a ca sino, the machine is set to pay back at least ninety -five perc ent. Philli ps expl ained that the Free Spin machines allow the ope rator to se t up the g ames howe ver he or she wa nts, such as how many

cre dits a play er g ets for e very dollar, the minimum and max imum bets o n ea ch gam e and the
rete ntion r atio, which is c ommon to the “ eig ht-liner” g ames found thr oug hout the country . He state d that setting the rete ntion ratio “is a unique c hara cteristic to a g ambling de vice a s op p o s ed t o an amusement device or a ve nding ma chine a nd there is no need for rete ntion ratios on those types of machines.”

Phill ip s t est if

ied th at, si mi larto gambl in g devi ces, th e Free S pi n m achi nes hav e “so ftmeter s” as part of the computer

prog ram that tra ck the a mount of mone y t h at go es i nto, and out of, the

m a c h i n e

. H e e xp l a i n e d t h a t , w h e n s o m e o n e c l e ar s t h e c r e d i t s f r o m a m a c h i n e , the F re e Spi n machine ha s an “out mete r” that tracks the c redits paid out to play ers. He stated that both ga mbling device s and F ree Spin machines have “har d meters” that are used as a security chec k on the numbers sh ow ing on the “ so ft

me te rs ” of

the g a me . T he nu mbe rs take n f ro m th e “har d me te rs ” sh ou ld

corr espond with the numbers f rom the “sof

t meters.” Phill ips said that these ty pes of mete rs ar e not

us ua lly fo un d o n a mus e me nt d e vic e s o r v e nd ing ma c hin e s.

Phi lli ps te sti fi e d tha t ano the r ch ara c te ri sti c of g a mbl ing de vic e s is that the y ha ve the abil ity to pay out winnings to play ers. He explained that slot machines usually pay out by dispensing c oins

or tok e ns in t

ray s a t th e bo tto ms o f the ma c hin es. He sta te d th a t ma c hin e s su c h a s th e F re e Spi n machines a

re not de signe d to pay

out like slot m achine s. He said that these types of machines “ are typically what we would call manufa cture d for the g ray marke t, . . . so primarily they ’re try ing not to display the char acte ristics of a g ambling ma chine . . . . [T]hey devised a way to pay off the pla y ers without dumping money

into a tray

which would be obvious to any law enf orce ment ag ency .” Phill ips ex plained that the Fr ee Spin mac hines have a fe ature wher e an ope rator of the machine s can “cl e ar o f f th e c r e d it s

. ” H e s tate d th a t, w h e n th e c r e d it s ar e c le ar e d o f f o f th e ma c h in e , th e “ hard meter” on the machine reg isters the number of cre dits paid out, and the c redits display ed on the monitor of the m achine g oes t o zero “so t he nex t play er cannot pl ay those cre dits and be paid for the

same c redits.” He explained that this “kno ck off ” fe ature on the Fr ee Spin machine s “is just one-7-

c ha ra c te ri sti c that is us e d in g a mbl ing de vic e s a s o pp os e d to amu se me nt d e vic e s w hic h g e ne ra lly
y ou ’l l not fin d

. . . o n a n a m u s e m e n td e v i c e

. ” P h i l l i p s t e s t i f i e d t h a t , w i t h r e g ar d t o t h e F r e e S p in machine, “ y ou can se e that y ou can pla ce mone y in the machine, y ou can rec eive . . . cre dits for y our

wa g e r. Yo u c a n p la y

the g a me a ndha ve wi nn ing s o r l os [ ses ,] and we ’r e able to kno c k o ff tho se winnings a nd g et paid for those winnings .

. . .” He ex plained that those are the charac teristics that he looks for in g ambling de vices.

Phill ips testified that he also examined the business rec ords that the Def endants kept for the Fr ee Spin machine s. He stated that the Def endants ke pt b o oklets of pre printed forms tit led “Collection Reports” that contained the dates of c ollection, the location and numbe r of the ma chine, the total amount of m oney in the m achine
, the amount paid out to play ers, the ne t amount to divide with the merc hant, the mer chant’ s share and the De fendan t s ’ s h ar e. He state d that most of the collection re ports also contained a l ine t o deduct a five pe rce nt tax from the total amount collec ted by the machine

. He explained that the “route collector ” would g o around to a ll the locations that had the Fr ee Spin machine s and re cord how much m oney the machine s took in and how much money was pa id out to play ers by rea ding the soft and har d meters. Phi l l i p s s t at ed t h at, after making the calc ulations, the “route c ollector” would reimburse the establishment for the amount of money it had to pay out on the machines. He e x plained that “the differ ence betwee n what we nt into the machine and what’s been pa id out would then be split in som e fa shion with the establishm ent. I n this case[,] it wa s consistently [a] fifty -fifty split between the e stablishment and the . . . vendor of the mac hines.” Phill ips testified that the De fe n d an ts’ collection re ports “ar e the sa me as we see in a ny g ambling device operation throughout the c ountry .” He stated t hat all of t he collection reports contained “ a series of numbers written down[,] and t h es e are both the ha rd meter numbers and the soft meter numbers

. . . .” Phill ips e x plained that these rec orded numbers are nece ssary “to verify t h at t he

a mou nt tha t w e nt i nto the ma c hin e is c or re c t[] a nd the a mou nt of

pa y ou ts i s w ha t w a s a c tua lly pa id off the machine. And t hese are all numbers that would be f ound on a norma l collection shee t for a g ambling de vice ope ration.” H e re ported that the c ollection reports did not contain a ny evidenc e of

a c c ou nti ng fo r c os ts o f the sp orts c ard s th a t w e re pla c e d in to the ma c hin e s.

Phi lli ps te sti fi e d th a t he als o ex a min e d a le g a l pa d th a t c on ta ine d r e c or ds of the F re e Spi n

mac h i n es fr o md i ff

er en tes t ab l i s h m en t s

. He s t at ed t h at t h e l ega l p ad co n t ai n ed h an d wr i tten notations of the hard and soft meters for each of the s ix machines at one loca tion for Dec ember of 1998, the
tot a l a mou nt o f m on e y

take n in a ndpa id o ut b y

the ma c hin e s a t th a t lo c a tio n for 19 98 , a ndthe pr of it fo r tho se ma c hin e s for

19 98 . H e e xpla ine d th a t th e se ty pe s o f r e c or ds “ are thi ng s w e wo uldty pic a lly see in .

. . g ambling device operations re cords.” Phill ips testified that the leg al pad a lso contained

rec ords of the Fr ee Spin mac hines at the other locations and calc ulations of how much money went in and out of the mac hines. He stated that, acc ording to the collection reports and the recor ds kept on the leg al pad, the twe nty -nine F ree Spin machines collec ted a total of $333,684.85 in 1998, and he ca lculated the g ross profit of the ma chines in 1998 to be $129,217.60. Phillips t estified that the machines c ollected a

total of $533,092 .00 from January to May of 1999. He explained that the Def endants’ busine ss rec ords for the Fr ee Spin machine s “ar e very simil ar to m o s t g ambling operations. The fac t that acc ounting r ecor ds are kept that only ref lect the ins and o uts on the machine is c onsistent with gambling device machines a s opposed to . . . vending businesses . . . .”-8-

Phi lli ps state d th a t bu sin e sse s th a t ma na g e ve nd ing ma c hin e s w ill ha ve re c or ds that r e fl e c t a de du c tio n fr om the g ro ss sa le s fo r the c os t of the g oo ds that we re so ld, bu t on the Defend ant s’ business rec ords, “t here ’s no indication that there is any expense for w hat they ’re selling, [rathe r] the only expense is the pay

outs on the machine.”

On c ro ss- e xami na tio n, Phi lli ps te sti fi e d th a t it wa s c omm on fo r o pe rator s to mis la be l a g ambling de vice a nd that the banne rs posted ab o v e t h e Fr ee Spin machines would have had a “minimal effe ct” on his opinion as to whether those machines wer e g ambling device s. He state d that he examined the rule s posted next t o the Free Spin machines and determined that the Def endants or the oper ators of the machines at the various esta blishments did not enfor ce the rule that stated that “the pr omotional points rec eived f rom the purcha se of the

. . . car d or from a f ree play voucher have no cash va lue and may

not be re deeme d.” H e s t at ed that the Fr ee Spin machine s could not distinguish betwee n cre dits obtained initi ally by placing money into the machine or cr edits obtained by wag ering cre dits on the eig ht-liner g ame. Phillips acknowledg ed th at m an yproducts off er

swee pstakes g ames that re ly on chance
, t h o u gh during his tim e with the Rac ketee ring Records An a ly sis Un it o f the F B I , th e F B I ha d n ot i nv e sti g a te d th os e games. H e state d th a t th e F re e Spi n machines diff

er f rom swee pstakes g ames beca use the Fr ee Spin machine s are g ambling de vices. He explained that “ [i ]f it’s a mecha nical device that allows y ou to risk consideration and[,] throug h the play of a g ame of

chanc e[,] rec eive a rew ard[,] it

. . . would fall under our definition of a g ambling device .” The Def

endants’ c ounsel attempted to cr oss-examine Phil lips about specific swe epstake s g ames, but the trial c ourt limit ed cr oss-examination to as k i n g Phill ips about the cha rac teristics of tho se sw e e ps take s g a me s, no t th e sp e c if ic g a me s th e mse lve s.

On c ro ss- e xami na tio n, Phi lli ps te sti fi e d th a t if so me on e se nt of f f or a fr e e pr omo tio na l g a me and then play ed that fr ee g ame on the Fr ee Spin mac hine, “then in that instance they would not have the cha rac teristic of c onsideration, so

. . . for that play of the g ame it would not qua lify as a g ambling device .” He stated that he did not c heck to se e whether the Def endants paid fede ral income tax or Tenne ssee vending machine tax es on the profits from the machines. He ex plained that he did not know whethe r paying ta x es on the prof its from the m ac h i n es “would bear on w hether they wer e gam b l i n g o r not . . . .” When aske d whether the Def endants’ ma chines would be considere d g a m b l i n g d e v i c e s i f

t h e y v e n d e d b o t t l e s o f s o f

td r i n k s i n s t e a d o f

b a s e b a l l c ar d s , P h i l l i p s t e s t i f i e d
, “ If
y ou’ve g ot cre dits that could be cashe d out f or the equivalent value of what y ou put into the machine and y ou were al l o we d to wag er w ith those credits[,] I would say , y es, it would be a g ambling device .”

Th e De fe nd a nts the n c a lle d D w ayn e K e i thH e f

lin , c hie f e xec uti ve of

fi c e r o f Wo rl d o f G a me s, L L C, to t e s ti f

y

. H e f li n te s ti f ie d th a t h e in v e n te d th e F r e e Sp in ma c h in e a n d th a t th e ma c hine

c omb ine d a

ve nd ing ma c hin e wi th a vid e o g a me . H e e xpla ine d, “ Th e c omb inatio n w a s d e ri ve d in

o rd ert o s el l

. . . co l l ec t o rs [ ca rd s ]
, an d t o o ff era p ro m o t i o n al gam e o f c h an ce t o en co u ra ge consumers to purc hase the car d throug h t h i s m ac hine ver sus going to a ball ca rd shop or other vending machines.” He state d that, unlike g ambling devices, the Fr ee Spin machine s were desig ned

so that if the su pp ly

of c ard s in the ma c hin e is e xha us te d, the n the ma c hin e wi ll n ot w or k. He fl in explained that, unlike a g ambling de vice, the FreeSpin machine sells sports car ds for a dollar ea ch.-9-

He state d that, for every dollar inserted into the ma chine, one and a ha lf perc ent g oes to the State for g ross reve nue sales tax, which “is another char acte ristic y ou do not se e in a g ambl i n g d ev i ce.” He fl in e xpla ine d th a t th e F re e Spi n ma c hin e s h a ve Sta te ve nd ing sta mps a ff ixedto the fr on t of

the m, unlike g ambling device s. He testified tha t he re ceive d eig ht or nine re quests for f ree g ames during the time the Def

endants ope rate d the machine s and that this opti on of allowing play ers to send a way fo r f re e g a me s “ is n ot a

c ha ra c te ri sti c of a g a mbl ing de vic e .” He fl in te sti fi e d tha t e ve ry fr e e g a me voucher used to play

a fre e g ame on the Free Spin machine is rec orded by the machine , “[s] o, there ’s

acc ountabilityin this m achine that y ou wouldn’t see in a g ambling de vice.” He state d that the video g ame on t h e Fr ee Spin machines was similar to “Cher ry Masters” or “Cher

ry Pickers” vide o slot

ma c hin e g a me s.

Hef lin testified that he enter ed into a contra ct with the Def endants whe n they

purcha sed the machines tha t set forth ce rtain rules of operation of t he machines that had to be f ollowed. He sta ted that if the y vio la te d th os e ru le s, the De fe nd a nts “ c ou ld l os e the ir dis tr ibu tor sh ip, the ir

inv e stm e nt,

a nd[the y wo uld ha ve to g ive ] the pr op e rt y ba c k to Wor lds of Ga me s. ” He fl in te sti fi e d that he or his emplo y ee s chec ked to see if the De fenda nts followed the rule s of oper ation, which included display ing the rules of the g ame, the f ree g ame vouc hers a nd the banne rs for the machines, a nd the Def endants c omplied with the rules. H e ex p l ai n ed that the De fenda nts had to purcha se all of the sp orts c ard s f

or th e mac hi nes f

ro m Wor ld o f G a me s, be c a us e “ [o]ur lon g te rm

inc ome fr om this machine being in opera tion is t hat we se ll the [ Def endants] and other pe ople like them the stock that g oes in the mac hines.” He said that baseba ll c ards wer e the most popular type of sports cards in the B ri sto l are a . H e state d th a t th e De fe nd a nts we re re qu ir e d to pay a ll o f the sa le s ta xes o n th e ba se ba ll

c ard s th e y

so ld in the ma c hin e s. He fl in r e po rt e d th a t th e De fe nd a nts pa id thr e e to thr e e a nda ha lf

c e nts pe r c ardfo r the sp orts c ard s th e y pu t in to the ma c hin e s. He state d th a t th e De fe nd a nts pa id $2,495.00 plus sales tax for eac h machine.

Hef lin testif ied that the Free Spin machines wer e not g ambling de vices be cause “y ou are

never require d to risk a ny thing of value, ther efor e, y ou arenever wag ering anything on c hance .” He explained that cre dits obtained on the machine s by inserting money have no c ash value , rathe r the

cre dits have to be play ed on the mac hines in order for the play ers to cash in their cr edits. He stated that play ers may

cash in a ny

cre d i t s above the number of c redits they initiallyrec eived whe n they inser te d th e ir

mon e y . H e sa id tha t th e ru le s f or the F re e Spi n ma c hin e s d id n ot r e qu ir e play e rs to

re a c h tw o h un dr e d c re dit s in or de r t o c a sh in the ir c re dit s.

On c ro ss- e xami na tio n, He fl in t e sti fi ed that he c ha rg e d th e De fe nd a nts $2 5, 00 0. 00 a s a dis tr ibu tio n f

e e to p la c e the F re e Spi n ma c hin e s in the Sul liv a n Cou nty are a

. He state d th a t he pa id from half a cent to a c ent and a

half for eac h baseba ll card tha t he distributed to the Def endants, a nd he c ha rg e d th e De fe nd a nts fr om t wo to thr e e a nd a ha lf c e nts fo r the c ard s. He e xpla ine d th a t so me of the c ards plac ed in the mac hines may be wor t h s i gn i fi ca n tly

more than the common car ds that

we re pla c e d in to the ma c hin e s. He state d tha t his co mpa ny se t th e re te nti on ratio on the F re e Spi n

ma c hin e s a t f

if ty -f ive pe rc e nt, a ndthe De fe nd a nts , th ro ug h th eir con tra c t w ith Wor lds of Ga me s, ag ree d not to chang e anything on the m ac hines. Hef lin admitted that the machines c ould not dif fe re nti a te be tw e e n th e ini tia l c re dit s a wa rd e d b y ins e rt ing mon e y

int o th e machi ne s a ndc re dit s-10-

wo n a s a r e s u lt o f b e tt in g th o s e in it ia l c r e d it s

. H e a c k n o w le d g e d th a t h is c o mp a n y o wned a nd

o p e r a t e d s o m e F r e e S p i n m a c h i n e s i n B e d f o r d C o u n t y.

F oll ow ing p r e s e n t at i o no f

e v ide nc e a ndc los ing arg ume nts , th e jury c on vic te d th e De fe nd a nts of ag g ravated g ambling pr omotion. The trial court sente nced D efe ndant Geor g e A. Va nce to two y e ars of su pe rv ise d pro ba tio n fol low e d by fo ur y e ars of un su pe rv ise d p ro ba tio n a ndor de re d h im t o make r estitution to the Tennessee Department of R evenue in the amount of $130,521.00. The trial
court sente nced D efe ndant Vincent Vanc e to one y ear of super vised probation followe d by one y ear of un su pe rv ise d p ro ba tio n. Th e De fe nd a nts no w a pp e a l.

II. Ana lys is

On app e a l, the De fe nd a nts c on te ndthat: (1) th e e vid e nc e is i ns uf fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

the ir convictions bec ause the re w as no evide nce that they knowing ly

eng ag ed in a g ambling e n terprise and the Fr ee Spin machine s were not principally desig ned as g ambling de vices; (2) the trial court abused its discretion by

prohibiting the D efe ndants from introducing the testimony of a patent at torney

c on c e rn ing the is su ance of a pa te nt o n th e F re e Spi n ma c hin e ; a nd(3 ) the tr ia l c ou rt abu se d it s dis c re tio n b y

pr oh ibi ti ng th e Defen dan ts fro m i nt rod uci ng evi den ce co nc e rn ing c omp a ra ble pr oduc ts, g ames a nd promotions sim ilar to the play on the Fr ee Spin machine s.

A. Suf fi ciency of the Evidence

Th e De fe nd a nts c on te ndthat th e e vid e nc e pr e se nte d a t tria l is ins uf fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

the ir convictions. When an ac cused c halleng es the suff iciency of t he evide nce, a n appellate court’s standardo f

r e v ie w is w h e th e r , a f

te r c o n s id e r in g th e e v id e n c e in th e li g h t m o s t f a v o r ab le to the prosec ution, any

rational trier of fac t c ould ha ve found the essential elements of the crime be y ond

a re a so na ble do ub t. Te nn . R. App . P. 13 (e ); Jac ks on v. Vi rg ini a , 44 3 U .S. 30 7, 32 4 ( 19 79 ); Sta te v. Smit h, 24 S.W .3d 274, 278 (Tenn. 2000). This rule applies to finding s of guilt based upon dire ct evidenc e, cir cumstantial evidenc e, or a co m b i n ati on of both direc t and circ umstantial evidence

. Sta te v. Pe nd e rg ra ss , 13 S.W .3d 389, 392-93 (Te nn. Crim. App. 1999).

I n de te rm ini ng the su ff

ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e , thi s Cou rt sh ou ld no t re -w e ig h or re -e va luate the evidence. State v. Ma tthews

, 80 5 S. W.2 d 7 76 , 7 79 (T e nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 90 ). No r m a y thi s C o u rt s u b s t i t u t e i t s i n fe re n ce s fo r t h o s e d ra wn b y t h e t ri ero f f

ac tfr o mt h e e v i d en ce

. S t at e v

. Bu ggs , 99 5 S.W. 2d 10 2, 10 5 (T e nn

. 19 99 ); L iaka s v. Sta te , 286 S.W .2d 856, 859 (Tenn. 1956) . Questions

c on c e r n i n g t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f t h e w i t n e s s e s , t h e w e i g h t a n d v a l u e o f t h e e v i d e n c e , a s w e l l a s a ll fac tual issues raised by

the evidenc e ar e re s o l ved by the trier of

fac t. L iakas

, 286 S.W .2d at 859. This Court must aff

ord the State the strong est leg itimat e view of the evide nce c ontained in the

rec ord, as well as a ll reasona ble infer ence s which may be dra wn from the e vidence

. State v. Evans

, 838 S.W .2d 185, 191 (Tenn. 1992) . Be ca u s e a v erdict of g uilt aga inst a defe ndant re moves the presumption of innoce nce a nd raises a presumption of guilt, the convicted c riminal defe ndant bea rs the burde n of showing that the evidenc e wa s leg ally insufficient to sustain a g uiltyverdic t. I d.-11-

Th e De f e n d a n t s w e r e c o n v i c t e d o f a g g r a v a t e d g a m b l i n g p r o m o t i o n

. A p e r s o n c o m m i ts

a g g ra va te d g a mbl ing pr omo tio n “ wh o k no wi ng ly inv e sts in, fi na nc e s, ow ns , c on tr ols , s up e rv ise s,

m an age s o r participa tes in a g ambling e nterprise .” Te nn. Code Ann. § 39-17- 504(a) (1997). Gambling enter

prise mea ns “two (2) or more pe rsons reg ularly eng ag ed in g ambling promotion as define d in § 39-17-503.” T enn. Code Ann. § 39- 17-504(b) . Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 39- 17 -5 03 (a ) ( 19 97 ) d e fi ne s g a mbl ing pr omo tio n a s f oll ow s:
A p e rs on c ommits a n o ff e ns e wh o k no wi ng ly

ind uc e s o r a ids a no the r t o

e ng a g e in g a mbl ing , a nd : (1) Intends to derive or

derive s an ec onomic benef it o ther than pe rsonal winnings f

rom the g ambling; or (2) Participates in the g ambling and has, other than by virtue of skill or luck, a lesser risk of losing or g reater chanc e of winning than one (1) or more of the other pa rt ic ipa nts

. Knowing ly

“re fer s to a person who acts knowing ly with respec t to the conduct or to c ircumstance s surrounding the conduc t when the person is awa re of the nature of t he conduct or that circ umstances exis t.” Tenn. Code A nn. § 39-11-106( a)( 20) (1997) . A per son “ac ts kno wi n gl y wi t h respe ct to a

re su lt o f the pe rs on ’s con du ct whe n the p e rs on is a wa re that th e c on du c t is re a so na bly c e rt a in t o

cause the re sult.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 11-106(a )(20) . Gambling “mea ns risking a ny thing of value for a profit whose return is to any deg ree conting ent on chanc e, but doe s not inc lu d e a l aw ful business transac tion.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 17-501(1) (1 9 9 7 ). A lawf ul business transac tion “includes a ny

futures or

commodities t ra ding.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 17-501(4) . Profit “means anything of

value in addition to the g ambling be t.” Tenn. Code A nn. § 39-17-501( 6). A g ambling d e v ic e “ me a n s a n y th in g d e s ig n e d f o r u s e in g a mb li n g , in te n d e d f o r u s e in g a mb li n g , o r used f or g ambling.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 17-501(3)

.

The Te nnessee Supreme Court upheld the c onstitut ionality of Tenne ssee Code A nnotated

s e c t i o n s 3 9

- 1 7

- 5 0 1 a n d 3 9

- 1 7

- 5 0 5 ( 1 9 8 9 ) i n S t a t e v

. B u rkh ar t , 5 8 S

. W

. 3 d 6 9 4 ( T e n n

. 2 0 0 1 )

. In Bur khart, the defe ndant was char g ed with possession of a g ambling device in violation of Tennesse e Code Ann o tate d s e c ti o n 3 9

- 1 7

- 5 0 5 a f te r a p o li c e o f

f ic e r f o u n d v id e o s lo t ma c h in e s in the de fe nd a nt’ s b ar. B ur

kh art , 58 S.W. 3d a t 69 6. Whil e up ho ldi ng the c on sti tut ion a lit y of the statut e s, the Cou rt ma de the fo llo wi ng ob se rv a tio ns :
A g ambling de vice is de fined as “anything desig ned for use in g ambling, intended for

us e in g a mbl ing , o r u se d fo r gamblin g .” Te nn . Co de An n. § 3 9- 17 -5 01 . T his definition is sufficiently

clea r to provide noti ce that a slot machine is a g ambling device

.

A s lot

ma c hin e is de sig ne d for us e in g a mbl ing a ndno rm a lly int e nd e d f

or us e i n gam b l i n g. The outcome of a g ame on B urkhart’s machines is conting ent upon chanc e. Skill is not require d to play the slot machines. The c onfiscate d machines

wer e equippe d with knock-off switches and r etention meter s. The number of g ames-12-

or cr edits won by

the play er c ould b e recorded by the machine s. The knock- off switch on the mac hines allowed c redits won t o b e re m oved fr om the scre en but

rema in rec orded w ithin the machine. Unlike standard arc ade g ames, the settings on the slot machines could be chang ed to manipulate the odds of winning. T he ch ar ac t er i s t i cs o f t h e m ac h i n es d em o n s t ra t e t h ei r d es i gn fo r u s e i n gam b l i n g.

I d. at 698.

I n Painter v. St a te , 4 5 S. W. 2 d 4 6
, 4 6 ( T e n n

. 1 9 3 2 )
, th e d e f e n d a n t w a s c o n v ic te d for unlawful l y k eeping a nd exhibi ting a g aming device in violation of Shannon’s Code section 6805, which provide d as follows: “I f any person e ncoura g e or pr omote, aid or a ssist, t he playing at any g ame, or the m aking of any bet or wag er, f or money or other va luable thing , or kee p or exhibit any g aming table or de vice f

or g aming , he is also g uilty of a misdemeanor.” The defe ndant owned a nd operated a mint vending machine, “ which, i n addition to delivering a pac kag e of mints for the customer’ s coin, may emit .

. . chec ks or chips” that could be used to pla y a baseba ll g ame attached to the vending machine. Painter, 45 S.W .2d at 46. The number of chips the customer w ould rec eive for e ach coin deposited wa s “controlled by the interior mec hanism of the mac hine, and va ries fr om two to twe nty

. . . . The [chips]

. . . have no intrinsic value. The y are delivere d to [ the customer] for the s ole purp o s e o f

e n ab li n g h im

to o p e r a te th e ma c h in e in p lay in g th e g a me o f b a s e b a ll as described.” I d.

T h e Co u r t n o te d th a t th e c h ip s g a v e th e c u s to me r “ th e r ig h t to o p e r a te th e machine f or wh a te ve r a mus e me nt the play ing of the g a me wi ll a ff

or d. I t is a

ri g ht n ot e xten de d u nif

or mly to a ll

c us tom e rs of

the sto re

. . . b ut o nly

to tho se wh o p ur c ha se min ts, a ndto th em on ly accor ding to chanc e and c ontinge nt fortune.” I d. The Court further noted t hat m any customers would place more

mon e y int o th e ma c hin e “ in the ho pe of e na bli ng him se lf

[or he rs e lf ] to c on tin ue the c on te st, wi th the pac kag e of mints a minor consider ation.” I d. at 47. The Court e x plained that the chips that we re randomly awa rded by the vending machine w ere “thing s of value” under the g ambling statutes be c a u s e t h e c h i p s a l l o w e d t h e c u s t o m e r t o c o n t i n u e t h e o p e r a t i o n o f t h e m a c h i n e f

o r a m us e me nt. The Court held that the mint vending machine w ith the attache d baseba ll ga me was a g ambling device beca

use “[t] he funda mental and underly ing principle of the offe r made by the device to the customer is one of

chanc e and ha zard, and fa ils withi n the l etter and spirit of the statute.” I d. at 47.

I n a similar ca se, the Te nnessee Supreme Court, re ly ing upon its dec ision in Painter, held that

a min t ve nd ing ma c hin e wa s a g a mbl ing de vic e be c a us e the play e r o f the ma c hin e wa s a wa rd e d, in addition to a packa g e of mints, a varying number of fre e play s on the machine for every nickel the play e r i ns e rt e d. He art le y v. Sta te , 1 57 S.W. 2d1, 3 ( Te nn . 1 94 1) . T he Cou rt e xpla ine d th a t:

“I n g ener al, . . . a s l o t m achine which, in re turn for a coin deposited ther ein, dispenses merc handise of the value o f such coin, acc ompanied at oc casiona l and

uncertain intervals by a vary ing amount of m oney , trade chec ks, or coupons, or mor e broadly , one which pr ovides an e lement of c hance , is a g ambling de vice.”-13- “Ac cording to the g ener ally preva iling opinion, wher e the return to the play er is thus dependent on an element of chanc e, a slot mac hine is a g ambling de vice, e ven though the play er is assured of his money ’s worth of some commodity and, henc e, cannot lose. A ls o , according to the g reat weig ht of authority a slot machine is not

re nd e re d inn oc uo us by the fa c t that it ind ic a te s in a dv a nc e of e a c h de po sit ex a c tly what it will dispense, since it is considered that in such instanc es, the play er g ambles not on the immediate return for the coin he deposits, but on the hope or cha nce that the indicator w ill show a profit on his [ or her ] nex t play . . . .”

“F urthermor e, a ma chine whic h returns me rcha ndise of the va lue of the c oin play ed there in and, in addition, a cha nce of rec eiving a vary ing a mount of chec ks which may be us e d to play

the ma c hin e fo r a mus e me nt o nly is a g a mbl in g d e vic e , th e ri g ht t o

c on tin ue the op e ratio n of the ma c hin e fo r amus e me nt b e ing a thi ng of va lue wi thi n statutes direc ted ag ainst g aming . . . .”

I d. at 2-3 (quoting 24 Am. J ur. Ga mb lin g a nd Pr ize Con te sts § 35 (1941))

. The Court also noted that “[i] f the mac hine in question were limit ed to t h e delivery of a pa ckag e of mints, it would have no element of

chanc e conne cted with it. I t is this a dded inducement of rec eiving something f

or nothing that arouse s the g ambling instinct.” I d. at 3. The Court c oncluded that a “‘thing of value ’ t o be the

su bje c t of g a mbl ing ma y

be a ny ‘thin g ’ a ff

or din g the ne c e ssa

ry lur e to i nd ulg e the g a mbl ing ins tin c t. An y inc ite me nt wh ich wo uldimp e l th e play e r t o s take his mon e y on a c ha nc e of

wi nn ing wo uld produce the evil conse quence s at which the e nactment is aimed.” I d. (quoting State v. Mint Vending Mach., 154 A . 224, 226 (N.H. 1931) ).

On app e a l, t he De fe nd a nts c on te ndthat th e e vid e nc e is i ns uf fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

the ir convictions bec ause the “proof prese nted at trial e stablished that the [Fre e Spin] machine is not pri n ci p al ly

desig ned for

g ambling” and the ope ration of the Free Spin machines in Bristol establishments was a lawful business transac tion. The Def endants further contend that there was no evidenc e that they

knowing ly

eng ag ed in a g ambling enter prise. We respec tfully

disag ree with the Def endants’ a ssertions.

Th e De fe nd a nts sti pu la te d th a t th e y ow ne d a ndop e rate d twe nty -n ine Fre e Spi n ma c hin e s in nine B ristol establishments betwee n Aug ust of 1998 and June 10, 1999. There is no dispute that the Def endants fina nced a nd supervised the operation of these machines, which included stoc king the machines with sports c ards, collecting money from the machine s and re cording the amount of money that went into and out of the machines. The issue we must dec ide is whether , afte r considering the evidenc e in the lig ht most fa vorable to the prosec ution, any rational trier

of fa ct could have found bey ond a re asonable doubt that the operation of the Fr ee Spin machine s constituted g ambling. I f so, then s uf f ic ie n t e v id e n c e e xis ts in th e r e c o r d to s u p p o r t th e D e f e n d a n ts ’ c o n v ic ti o n s o f

a g g r a v ated g ambling pr omotion.

The e vidence s h owed that the Free Spin machines worke d in the following way : A play er activate s the Fr ee Spin machine by inserting a $1, $5, $10 or $20 bill, and the mac hine dispenses one-14-

baseba ll card f

or eve ry dollar inserte d and g ives the pl ay er twenty cre dits for every dollar to wag er

on a vid e o s lot -m a c hin e g a me . A ft e r a play e r wa g e rs c re dit s a nd hit s the “ play ” bu tto n, the F re e Spi n machine r and o m ly

determines whether

the play er ha s won additional cre dits or lost credits. The play er ma y

wag er f rom eig ht cre dits to si x ty -four cre dits on each vide o slot-machine ga me, and onc e the pl ay er reac hes at least t wo hundred cre dits on the machine, he or she may g o to the cashie r of the business and ca sh in the cre dits at five ce nts a cre dit. A p l ay er may send aw ay

for a fre e play voucher and play the Fr ee Spin mac hine for fre e, though the play er will not rec eive a sports car d for the fre e play . Hef

lin testified that a play er ma y only cash in the c redits that wer e above the number of cr edits that the play er initiallyobtained by inserting the money ; however , the machine s could not

make that di sti nc tio n, a nd the c a sh ie rs pa id p la y e rs c a sh fo r a ll the c re dit s o n th e ma c hin e , r e g ard le ss of the ini tia l de po sit

.

The e vidence showed that the Free Spin machine had the cha rac teristics of a g ambling de vice be c a us e it a llo we d the play e r to ins e rt mon e y fo r f ive c e nt c re dit s, to w a g e r tho se c re dit s o n a g a me of cha nce a nd to c ash in those cre dits onc e the play er acc umulated two hundred c redits. Moreove r, the Fr ee Spin machine s were equipped with “soft” and “ha rd” me ters to trac k the amount of money pla c e d in to the ma c hin e a ndthe a mou nt pa id out to pla y e rs , an d the ma c hin e s als o h a d a de vic e to modify the winning perc entag e on the m achine s, simil ar to g ambling devices. The machines w ere simil ar to g ambling de vices b eca use they had a knoc k-off

feature so the c ashiers at the

e sta bli shme nt s cou ld c le ar o ut the c re dit s o n th e ma c hin e s a ft e r p a y ing play e rs fo r the ir c re dit s. Finally
, the Def

endants’ business rec ords of the Fr ee Spin mac hines wer e simil ar to g ambling de vice operations recor ds because they only rec orded the amount of money th at went into and out of the machines.

After examining the evide nce in the lig ht most favorable to the prosec ution, we conclude that the Fr ee Spin m ac h i n es clearly qualify as g ambling de vices be cause the machine s were “used f or g ambling.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 17-501(3) . The e vidence showed that the oper ation of the Free Spi n ma c hin e s f

e ll wi th in th e de fi nit ion of “ g a mbl ing ” be c a us e the ma c hin e s w e re us e d to ri sk

cre dits worth five cents apiece for a profit whose return wa s conting ent on cha nce. T enn. Code Ann. § 39-17-501( 1). T h e fac t that the Fr ee Spin machine s dispensed a sports card f or eve ry dollar ins e rt e d d oe s n ot c ha ng e the g a mbl ing c ha ra c te ri sti c s of the ma c hin e s. As the Te nn e sse e Sup re me Court held in He ar tley , “the right to continue the operation of the machine for a musement afte r

rec eiving a pac kag e of mints is a thing of value within statutes ag ainst g aming. ” He artley , 157 S.W .2d at 3; se e Painter, 45 S.W .2d at 47-48. I n this c ase, not only may a play er c ontinue play ing the e ig ht- lin e r g a me by wa g e ri ng his c re dit s a ft e r re c e ivi ng a sp orts c ard , b ut the play e r m a y c a sh in those cre dits after r eac hing the two-hundre d-cr edit threshold. Althoug h Hef lin testified that the

cre dits awarde d by

inserting money wer e “promotional” a nd had “no c ash value ,” play ers wa g ere d the se c re dit s o n th e e ig ht- lin e r g a me s a ndc a sh e d in the ir c re dit s a t f

ive c e nts apie c e , s o th e c re dit s

wer e “thing s of value” under the g ambling statute. We note that courts in other jurisdictions have also held that the Free Spin machines are g ambling devices. See, e.g ., MDS I nv., LL C v. St ate, 65 P.3d 197, 205 ( I d. 2003); J ack Eiser Sales Co. v. Wil son, 752 N.E.2d 225, 229 (I nd. Ct. App. 2001).

Acc ording ly , afte r considering the evidenc e in the lig ht most favorable to the prosec ution,-15-

we c onclu d e th a t a r a ti o n a l trie r o f f a c t c o u ld h a v e f

o u n d b e y o n d a r e a s o n ab le d o u b t that the operation of the Fr ee Spin machines constituted g ambling. We further conclude that the evidenc e showed that the D efe ndants committed g ambling pr omotion because they knowing ly

induced or aid e d p e o p le to e n g a g e in g a mb li n g th r o u g h th e ir p r o mo ti o n o f th e F r e e Sp in ma c h in e s in nine B ri sto l e sta

bli sh me nts , a ndthe y

de ri ve d an e c on omi c be ne fi t fr om the op e ratio n of tho se ma c hin e s. Te nn . Co de An n. § 39- 17 -5 03 (a ). Th e De fe nd a nts a sse rt that th e y didno t kn ow ing ly

c omm it ag g ravated g ambling promotion be cause they believed that the Fr ee Spin machine s were leg al under the g ambling sta tutes and they display ed the mac hines “in the main, public a re as ” o f the nine establishments. Howeve r, “[t] he fa ct that a pe rson honestly believes tha t he has a

rig ht to do what the law decla

res to be illega l will not affec t the criminality of the a ct.” Hunte r v. State, 12 S.W.2d 36 1, 36 2 ( Te nn . 1 92 8) . T he De fe nd a nts kn ow ing ly ow ne d a ndop e rate d th e F re e Spi n mac hin e s in nine B ristol establishments fo r p rofit, t here by inducing customers to g amble, betwe en Aug ust of 1998 and Ju n e 1 0
, 1 9 9 9

. T h e r e f o r e , a f te r v ie w in g th e e v id e n c e in th e li g h t mo s t f a v o r ab le to the prosec ution, we conc lude that a r ational trier of fac t could have f

ound bey ond a rea sonable doubt that the Def endants c ommitt ed ag g ravated g ambling pr omotion.

B. Evid entiary Rulings

The De fenda nts nex t c ontend that the trial court abused its discre tion on two occasions: (1) by prohibiting the D efe ndants from introducing the testimony of a patent attorney co n cerning the issuan ce o f a p at ent on the Free Spin machine; and (2) by prohibiting the D efe ndants from introducing evidenc e conc erning compar able pr oducts, g ames and promotions similar to the play on the F re e Spi n ma c hin e s. Th e Sta te arg ue s that the tr ia l c ou rt didno t a bu se its dis c re tio n b e c a us e bo th the testimony

reg arding the patent on the ma chines a nd the testimony about compar able pr o d ucts and g ames we re irr eleva nt and would have confuse d the jury . We ag ree with the State.

I n Te nn e sse e , ad mis sib ili ty of e vid e nc e is within the so un d disc re tio n of the tr ia l ju dg e . St a te v. Say lor

, 11 7 S.W.3 d 239 , 247 (T e nn . 200 3)

. Th e de te rm inatio n o f w he the r p ro ff e re d e vid e nc e is rele vant in acc ordanc e with Tenne ssee Rul e o f E v i d en ce 402 is left to the sound discretion of the
tr ia l ju dg e , as is the d e te rm inatio n o f w he the r the pr ob a tiv e va lue of e vid e nc e is s ub sta nti a lly outweig hed by

the possibilit y

of pre j u d i ce p u rsuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 403. State v. Kenne dy

, 7 S.W .3d 58, 68 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999) (c iting State v. F orbes

, 918 S.W .2d 431, 449 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) ); State v. Bur lison

, 8 6 8 S. W. 2 d 7 1 3
, 7 2 0

- 2 1 ( T e n n

. Crim

. A p p

. 1 9 9 3 )

. We wi ll on ly dis tur

b a n e vid e nti a

ry ru lin g on app e a l wh e n it app e ars that the tr ia l jud g e arb itr ari ly exercised his or he r discre tion. St ate v. B aker

, 785 S.W .2d 132, 134 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1989)

.

I nitial questions of admissibi lityof evide nce a re g overne d by

Tenne ssee Rul es of Evide nce 401 and 403. The se rules r equire t h at t h e t ri al court must first determine whether the proff ere d

e vid e nc e is r e le va nt. Pur su a nt to Rule 40 1, e vid e nc e is de e me d re le va nt if it ha s “a ny te nd e nc y to make the e x istence of

any fac t that is o f co nsequenc e to the dete rmination of the ac tion more probable than i t would be without the evidenc e.” See For bes

, 91 8 S.W. 2d a t 44 9. I n oth e r w or ds
, “evide nce is r el ev an t if it helps the trier of fac t resolve an issue of fa ct.” Ne il P. C ohen, et a l., Tennessee Law of

Evidenc e § 4.01[4] , at 4-8 (4th e d. 2000). I f t he trial court finds that the proff ere d-16-

evidenc e i s re l ev an t , it then weig hs the probative va lue of that e vidence ag ainst the risk that the evidenc e will unfairly prejudice the t rial. State v. J ames , 81 S.W .3d 751, 757 (Tenn. 2002) . I f the court finds that the pr obative value is substantially outweig hed by

its prejudicial ef

fec t, the evidenc e may be excluded. Te nn. R. Ev id. 403. “‘Excluding r eleva nt evidence under this rule is an

e xtra or din ary

re me dy that sh ou ld b e used sp ari ng ly a ndpe rs on s se e kin g to e xclu de oth e rw ise admissible and re levant evide nce ha ve a sig nificant burde n of p ersuasion.’” James

, 81 S.W .3d at 757-58 (quoting Whit e v. Va nderbilt Univ.

, 21 S.W .3d 215, 227 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999))

.

1. P at e nt At to r ne y Te st im ony

Af te r tho ro ug hly

re vie wi ng the re c or d, we c on c lud e that th e tr ia l c ou rt did no t a bu se its discretion by

proh i b i t i n g the Def

endants fr om introducing the testimony of a patent attorney

conce rning the issuance of a patent on the Fr ee Spin mac hine. The De fenda nts sought to ca ll Mark Patterson, a patent attorney and an e x pert in patent law, to te stify that the Fr ee Spin machine s were pa te nte d a s “ ve nd ing ma c hin e s” a nd no t “g a min g ma c hin e s. ” Am on g oth e r thin g s, Pa tte rs on wo uld have te stified that the name of the mac hine on the pate nt was “Collector Card/Fun Ca

rd Dispensing Sy stem with Promoti onal Fr ee Spin, Free Dra w Game Fe ature .” The State objec ted to the testimony as i rre levant, and the t rial court sustained the objection, stating , “I find that it’s irrele vant whethe r or not there is a patent. I t’s irrele vant what y ou call a machine. I t’s irrele vant how y ou describe a machine in a n abstrac t on a patent . . . . I t’s how t he machine works

. . . and it ’s how it’s used .

. . .”

We ag ree with the trial court’ s finding that Patterson’s testimony about the patent on the Free Spin machine was irr eleva nt to the jury ’s determination of whether the Def en d ants wer e g uiltyof ag g ravated g ambling pr omotion. The testimonyabout the pate nt on the machine wo u l d n o t have helped the trier of fac t r esolve an issue of fac t be cause the name of the machine on th e p at en t h as nothing to do with how the mac hine works. Under Te nnessee Code Annotated se ction 39-17-501, the determination of whether a machine is a g ambling device depends upon the machine ’s oper ation

a nd us e , no t the ma c hin e ’s na me

. Th e re fo re , the fa c t that the na me of the ma c hin e on the pa te nt i s

“ Col le c tor

Card /F un CardDi sp e ns ing Sy ste m wi th Pr omo tio na l F re e Spi n, F re e Dr a w G a me Fe ature ” is simplyirrele vant t o whether the machine s were used to g amble and w hether the Def endants we re guilty of agg ravated gambling promotion. Acc ording ly
, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discre tion by excluding this evidenc e.

2. Com parable P roducts and Gam es

We likewise conc lude that t h e trial court did not abuse its discretion by prohibiting the Def endants fr om introducing evidenc e conc erning comparabl e produc ts, ga mes and promotions simil ar to the pl ay

on the Fr ee Spin machine s. The De fenda nts’ counsel a ttempted to cross-e x amine Phill ips ab o u t s p ecific swee pstakes g ames fr om McDonald’s a nd Bob Eva ns, but the trial court lim ite d c ro ss- e xami natio n to a sk ing Phi lli ps abo ut the c ha ra c te ri sti c s of tho se sw e e ps take s g a me s,

no t th e sp e c if

ic g a me s th e mse lve s. Th e De fe nd a nts ’ c ou ns e l a lso re qu e ste d th a t he be al lowe d to ask He flin about compar able g ames a nd swee pstakes. The trial court found that such testimony was-17-

ir re le va nt b e c a us e the re we re no c ou rt c a se s th a t de c lare d th os e g a me s leg a l, an d “[i]f it i s r e le va nt, I find it is . . . too confusing a nd too prejudicial to allow it to be introduce d.”

Testimony

about s p ec i fi c sweepstakes g ames a nd promotions was irre levant to the jury ’s determination of whether the Def endants we re gu iltyof ag g ravated g ambling pr omotion. S uch testimonywould not have ha d any tendenc y to make the exis tence of any fac t that is of conseque nce to the determination of the action more probable than it would be without the testimony

. Moreove r, te sti mon y abo ut s pe c if

ic pr omo tio na l g a me s w ou ld h a ve c on fu se d th e jury , b e c a us e the De fe nd a nts

we re on tr ia l f

or a g g ra va te d g a mbl ing pr omo tio n in c on ne c tio n w ith op e ratin g the Fr e e Spi n

ma c hin e s, no t fo r ru nn ing oth e r ty pe s of pr omo tio na l g a me s. Th e tr ia l c ou rt a llo we d th e De fe nd a nts ’ counsel to ask que stions about the char acte ristics of di ffe rent sweepstake s g ames, but it did not allow counsel to ask a

bout spe cific g ames. After thoroug hly revie wing the rec ord, we c onclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding this evidenc e.

III. Conclusi on

I n acc ordanc e with the for eg oing a uthorities and reas oning, w e AF FI RM the trial court’s jud g me nts

.

___________________________________ ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, J UDGE