Commonwealth v. Hauck

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Hauck

474 A.2d 332, 326 Pa. Super. 461, 1984 Pa. Super. LEXIS 4349

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 6, 1984

DocketNo. 321

StatusPublished

This text of 474 A.2d 332 (Commonwealth v. Hauck) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Hauck, 474 A.2d 332, 326 Pa. Super. 461, 1984 Pa. Super. LEXIS 4349 (Pa. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The Commonwealth appeals from the order of March 3, 1982 granting appellee’s motion to dismiss indictment.

The record, pursuant to a stipulation of facts, indicates that appellee, while employed as a barmaid in an establishment which provided an electronic draw poker machine, “paid off” a liquor control agent and local police officer who had won free games on said machine. Appellee was also [463]*463observed “paying off” other players of the machine. The machine was of the same type as discussed in Commonwealth v. One Electro-Sport Draw Poker Machine, 297 Pa.Super. 54, 443 A.2d 295 (1981), rev’d Commonwealth v. Two Electronic Poker Game Machines, 502 Pa. 186, 465 A.2d 973 (1983).

Appellee was subsequently charged with violating 18 Pa.C.S. § 5513(a)(1) and (2)¹ regarding gambling devices. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss based on the decision in Commonwealth v. One Electro-Sport Draw Poker Machine, supra, which held such a gambling machine not to be a gambling device per se. That appeal was from an order granting a motion for the return of property, pursuant to the confiscation of the machine, as permitted by 18 Pa.C.S. § 5513(b).²

The instant appeal is from criminal charges arising from subsections (a)(1) and (2) of that section, which are not based on whether the machine was a gambling device per se, but on appellee’s conduct.

Under these circumstances, it was error to grant the motion to dismiss the charges, as section 5513(a)(1) and (2) contain no requirement that the device to be used for gambling purposes be a gambling device per se. In any event, our Supreme Court has recently held that the ma[464]*464chine in Commonwealth v. One Electro-Sport Draw Poker Machine, supra, was a gambling device per se. See Commonwealth v. Two Electronic Poker Game Machines, supra.

Order reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

The Commonwealth appeals from the order of March 3, 1982 granting appellee’s motion to dismiss indictment.

The record, pursuant to a stipulation of facts, indicates that appellee, while employed as a barmaid in an establishment which provided an electronic draw poker machine, “paid off” a liquor control agent and local police officer who had won free games on said machine. Appellee was also [463]*463observed “paying off” other players of the machine. The machine was of the same type as discussed in Commonwealth v. One Electro-Sport Draw Poker Machine, 297 Pa.Super. 54, 443 A.2d 295 (1981), rev’d Commonwealth v. Two Electronic Poker Game Machines, 502 Pa. 186, 465 A.2d 973 (1983).

Appellee was subsequently charged with violating 18 Pa.C.S. § 5513(a)(1) and (2)¹ regarding gambling devices. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss based on the decision in Commonwealth v. One Electro-Sport Draw Poker Machine, supra, which held such a gambling machine not to be a gambling device per se. That appeal was from an order granting a motion for the return of property, pursuant to the confiscation of the machine, as permitted by 18 Pa.C.S. § 5513(b).²

The instant appeal is from criminal charges arising from subsections (a)(1) and (2) of that section, which are not based on whether the machine was a gambling device per se, but on appellee’s conduct.

Under these circumstances, it was error to grant the motion to dismiss the charges, as section 5513(a)(1) and (2) contain no requirement that the device to be used for gambling purposes be a gambling device per se. In any event, our Supreme Court has recently held that the ma[464]*464chine in Commonwealth v. One Electro-Sport Draw Poker Machine, supra, was a gambling device per se. See Commonwealth v. Two Electronic Poker Game Machines, supra.

Order reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

474 A.2d 332, 326 Pa. Super. 461, 1984 Pa. Super. LEXIS 4349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-hauck-pasuperct-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack