Moore v. Miss. Gaming Comm'n
| Docket Number: | 2009-CA-00235-COA Linked Case(s): 2009-CA-00235-COA |
|
| Oral Argument: | 05-19-2010 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-29-2011 Opinion Author: Irving, P.J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Gaming - Legality of machines - Section 75-76-5(ff) - Consideration - Element of chance - Jurisdiction - Section 97-33-7(2) Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Griffis, P.J., Myers, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Carlton, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Maxwell, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-06-2009 Appealed from: Clay County Circuit Court Judge: James T. Kitchens, Jr. Disposition: Reversed Justice Court Ruling Ordering Return of Machines Case Number: 9130 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Ronnie Moore and Jeff Moore |
JERRY L. MILLS, JEFFREY J. HOSFORD, JOHN P. SCANLON |
|
|
| Appellee: | Mississippi Gaming Commission | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: THOMAS H. MUELLER, DEANNE B. SALTZMAN, LOUIS P. FRASCOGNA | ||
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Gaming - Legality of machines - Section 75-76-5(ff) - Consideration - Element of chance - Jurisdiction - Section 97-33-7(2) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Agents of the Mississippi Gaming Commission raided Paradise Isle Internet Café in West Point and seized thirty-nine computer terminals, a computer server, and a point-of-sale system, which they believed were illegal gambling devices. The State filed criminal charges against Ronnie Moore and Jeff Moore for their involvement with the internet café. The State later requested that the charges against the Moores be dismissed without prejudice until its cybercrime unit could analyze the machines. The justice court heard arguments regarding whether the seized equipment should be returned to the Moores following the State’s dismissal of the criminal charges. The State requested three weeks to analyze the machines, and the justice court ordered the State to either file charges against the Moores by November 8, 2007, or return the machines. The State appealed to circuit court. Following a non-jury trial, the circuit court found that the Moores had no property right in the machines because they were illegal slot machines. The Moores appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Legality of machines The Moores argue that the circuit court erred in finding that the seized machines were illegal slot machines because the elements of consideration and chance were not present. Relying on section 75-76-5(ff), the Mississippi Supreme Court has held that a gambling device is a slot machine if its play or operation requires the insertion of money, tokens or similar objects, or payment of consideration; and as a result of playing or operating the device, the player or operator has the potential to win a reward in the form of cash, premiums, merchandise, token, or anything of value; and the winning of some part or all of the potential reward is dependent in substantial part on an element of chance. Here, while the gambling devices seized from the internet café were computer terminals and not vending machines, they operated in a nearly identical fashion. Internet-café customers would purchase a telephone calling card, swipe the card through a card reader attached to the computer terminal, and “play” sweepstakes points by selecting various video games that simulated slot machines. Customers could use points won to purchase more phone time or redeem points for cash. An MGC agent who participated in the undercover investigation of the internet café which led to the charges against the Moores, testified that the employee who sold him a telephone card did not explain how to use the card or tell him how many minutes were on the card. In fact, he testified that he did not know that the access card that he received was also a telephone card. It is clear that the customers of the Moores’ internet café were purchasing prepaid telephone cards to play the computer terminals rather than to make telephone calls. As such, the element of consideration is satisfied. While playing the games at the computer terminals did not impact the outcome of the sweepstakes points, an element of chance still existed because a consumer who purchased a telephone card did not know whether the card contained a winning or losing sweepstakes points. Issue 2: Jurisdiction The Moores argue that the justice court retained jurisdiction over the seized machines; therefore, it was the proper court to order their return. This issue is now moot given the Court’s finding that the seized machines were illegal slot machines. Because the computers and other equipment seized from the Moores constitute illegal slot machines, section 97-33-7(2) provides that the Moores have no property rights to assert. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
