Opinion ID: 2069708
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: analysis of mcl 750.303(1); msa 28.535(1)

Text: Since MCL 750.303(1); MSA 28.535(1) does not define the term gaming, [1] we refer to the common-law definition which requires the presence of three elements: (1) price or consideration, (2) chance, and (3) prize or reward. 89 ALR2d 815, 827. See also State v Pinball Machines, 404 P2d 923, 925 (Alas, 1965); Farina v Kelly, 147 Conn 444, 449-450; 162 A2d 517 (1960); State v Paul, 43 NJ Super 396, 402-404; 128 A2d 737 (1957); Westerhaus Co v Cincinnati, 165 Ohio St 327, 335-336; 135 NE2d 318 (1956). Therefore, a machine which encompasses these three elements is a machine used for gaming under MCL 750.303(1); MSA 28.535(1). With respect to the draw poker machine which is the subject of this dispute, both parties agree that consideration, in the form of the money needed to play the game, and chance, in the random distribution of the cards, are present. The more controversial issue is whether or not a free game constitutes a reward or prize. This issue has previously been considered and decided by this Court. In Oatman v Port Huron Chief of Police, 310 Mich 57, 59; 16 NW2d 665 (1944), we held that [s]ince these free plays, the testimony shows, would ordinarily cost the player five cents each, the opportunity to have free plays is a thing of value. See also Henry v Kuney, 280 Mich 188, 192; 273 NW 442 (1937). [W]here there is an element of chance in the operation of the slot machine  where the one who plays the machine stands to win or lose money, trade checks, or prizes, by a chance,  the machine is a gambling device.... [Emphasis added.] We see no reason to reverse this decision as we are not persuaded that changes in the amusement machine industry have rendered the statute meaningless. [2] Therefore, the draw poker machine is a gambling device under MCL 750.303(1); MSA 28.535(1).