Case Name: TIERCE v. THE STATE
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1970-11-02
Citations: 122 Ga. App. 845
Docket Number: 45599
Parties: TIERCE v. THE STATE.
Judges: Deen, J., concurs. Evans, J., concurs specially. Deen, J., also concurs in the special concurrence.
Reporter: Georgia Appeals Reports
Volume: 122
Pages: 845–849

Head Matter:
45599.
TIERCE v. THE STATE.
Argued September 16, 1970
Decided November 2, 1970
Rehearing denied November 18, 1970
James B. Langford, Matthews, Maddox, Walton & Smith, Charles D. Flinn, Jr., for appellant.
David N. Vaughan, Jr., District Attorney, Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, Harold N. Hill, Jr., Executive Assistant Attorney General, William L. Harper, James B. Talley, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.

Opinion:
Hall, Presiding Judge.
Prior to the new Criminal Code, the operation of a lottery was declared a crime under Georgia penal statutes, but the definition of a lottery was found only in the decisions of our appellate courts. The necessary elements were held to be prize, chance and consideration. In determining whether sales promotion schemes constituted a lottery, the key question in practically all the cases has been that of consideration.
The new Criminal Code added the following definition: "A lottery is any scheme or procedure whereby one or more prizes are distributed by chance among persons who have paid or promised consideration for a chance to win such prize, whether such scheme or procedure is called a pool, lottery, raffle, gift, gift enterprise, sale, or policy game, or by some other name." Code Ann. § 26-2701 (d).
Appellant contends the language of the new definition requires that the question of consideration is to be determined not from the standpoint of the lottery operator (e.g. benefits flowing to it in the nature of increased business from the scheme) but from the standpoint of the holders of the tickets, cards, etc. (pecuniary detriment to them flowing to the operator). Appellant says the question to be asked is: did the holder of the prize tickets pay a valuable consideration for the chance? He further contends the answer here is "no" because there was no charge or obligation to purchase imposed upon the holders of the cards.
Several States with a similar statutory definition of lottery have construed the language to require the point of determination to be that of the ticket holder. We do not reject this as a general proposition, but only the results reached by our sister States when they applied it to a flexible participation gift enterprise such as we have here.
While some earlier Georgia cases may have used language that seemed to determine the question of consideration from the standpoint of the operator, this court, in a comprehensive opinion written in 1967, clearly looked for consideration from the standpoint of the ticket holders in a gift enterprise and found it present. "Consideration as an ingredient of a prohibited lottery or gift enterprise is shown when there is present, in the actual working of the sales promotion scheme, a class of persons who, in addition to receiving or being entitled to chances on prizes, supply consideration for all the chances in bulk by purchasing whatever the promoter is selling, whether the purchasers were required to do so or not under the wording of the promoter's rules." Boyd v. Piggly Wiggly Southern, 115 Ga. App. 628 (3) (155 SE2d 630).
The new Criminal Code definition is not inconsistent with the Boyd test. Both require that among those persons who receive a chance to win a prize there must be some who have paid a consideration (made a purchase at the store). We do not believe the legislature intended to drastically change the test to require all participants to have paid a consideration in order to have a lottery or similar scheme. In the Foreword of the new Criminal Code, the Study Committee states: ". . . it was a fundamental rule of the committee to retain as many laws as possible, with the interpretations of the courts carefully considered. The form and arrangement might be changed to meet modern conditions, the words may be changed for the sake of uniformity, but the substance was retained wherever possible . . ." Further, the definition itself specifically includes a scheme known as a "gift enterprise." These supermarket sales promotional devices have been typically classified as gift enterprises by the Georgia courts. Boyd, supra; Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Boatright, 115 Ga. App. 645 (155 SE2d 642).
The trial court did not err in finding defendant guilty of violating Code Ann. § 26-2703 (f).
Judgment affirmed.
Deen, J., concurs. Evans, J., concurs specially. Deen, J., also concurs in the special concurrence.