Poker Forum

Welcome Guest 

Show/Hide Header

Welcome Guest, posting in this forum requires registration.

Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Court Case: Colorado v. Raley
Posts: 319
Post Court Case: Colorado v. Raley
on: January 3, 2011, 08:54

Colorado v. Raley

Raley started a bar poker league in Greely in early 2008. Initially about 15 players showed up at a local bar to play in a poker tournament once a week or so. Each player paid $20 to play and the league kept 10% of that to pay a player/dealer $10 for his services in dealing in the game in which he was also a player. The rest of the money withheld was used to pay various league expenses. The balance of the player’s buy-ins were awarded as prizes to the top finishers in the weekly tournament. Over the next few months the people who asked to join and were accepted into the league grew to over 100, although no more than 37 ever showed up on any given night.

Raley was charged with illegal gambling under Colo. Revised Statutes Sec. 18-10-103(1). Gambling – professional gambling – offenses. (1) A person who engages in gambling commits a class 1 petty offense. (2) A person who engages in professional gambling commits a class 1 misdemeanor. If he is a repeating gambling offender, it is a class 5 felony.

Colorado Revised Statutes Sec. 18-10-102. Definitions provides:

As used in this article, unless the context otherwise requires:

(1) “Gain” means the direct realization of winnings; “profit” means any other realized or unrealized benefit, direct or indirect, including without limitation benefits from proprietorship, management, or unequal advantage in a series of transactions.

(2) “Gambling” means risking any money, credit, deposit, or other thing of value for gain contingent in whole or in part upon lot, chance, the operation of a gambling device, or the happening or outcome of an event, including a sporting event, over which the person taking a risk has no control, but does not include: (a) Bona fide contests of skill, speed, strength, or endurance in which awards are made only to entrants or the owners of entries;

*** (d) Any game, wager, or transaction which is incidental to a bona fide social relationship, is participated in by natural persons only, and in which no person is participating, directly or indirectly, in professional gambling; ***

The defense presented two threads in its case. First, that the members of the League had a bona fide social relationship because only an existing member could introduce people he knew to join the league. Second, the defense presented Professor Robert Hannum, a tenured professor of statistics and mathematics at the University of Denver, as an expert who was accepted as such and testified that in his expert opinion poker was a game of skill. Colorado case law has not determined whether the predominance test is followed. Professor Hannum presented testimony about one of his studies that showed the “skilled” player won 97% of the time in his simulation against an unskilled player who played at random. He also testified about other studies that reached similar conclusions.

The jury came back with a not guilty verdict. Since there were no special questions propounded to the jury, there is no way to know the grounds on which they based their decision.

The prosecution gave notice of appeal of the trial judge’s decision allowing Professor Hannum to testify on the game of skill issue. The prosecution asserted that the Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that games such as poker are games of chance, and thus it was error to admit evidence that it is a game of skill. In Charmes v. Central City Opera House Association, 773 P.2d 546 (Colo., 1989) the Colorado Supreme Court said: The last element of the statutory definition of “gambling” is that the risking of a thing of value for gain be contingent in whole or in part upon lot, chance, or the happening of an event over which the person taking the risk has no control. There is no dispute here over the fact that the card games and other games of chance at the Gala were contingent in whole or in part upon lot or chance or the happening or outcome of an event over which the person taking the risk had no control. While poker and perhaps some of the wagering games might involve some skill, these games certainly are contingent “in part” upon chance, and when, as here, the games involve risking a thing of value for gain, they constitute a form of “gambling” in its commonly understood sense. See Ginsberg v. Centennial Turf Club, 126 Colo. 471, 477, 251 P.2d 926, 929 (1952) (the game of poker is not a lottery but is most certainly a form of gambling). Id. at 551. (Emphasis supplied.)

The appeal in Charmes was from a declaratory judgment. The lower court held in favor of the charity, which wanted to hold a charitable fund-raising casino night party. The basic problems with the statements about some chance in Charmes is that the issue of skill versus chance was not litigated in that case and there is some chance in all endeavors, so a standard to determine the nature of a game needs to be adopted. An overwhelming majority of jurisdictions have adopted the predominance test perhaps for this very reason.

For example, on the obverse of that point, in State ex rel. Tyson v. Ted’s Game Enters., 893 So. 2d 376 (AL, 2004) a statute authorizing “bona fide coin-operated amusement machines” defined such machines as “every machine of any kind or character used by the public to provide amusement or entertainment … the result of whose operation depends in whole or in part upon the skill of the player ….” The defendant argued that as long as its coin-operated amusement machines involved “some skill” in their operation, they met that qualification… The Alabama Supreme Court held: …[Our constitution] forbids the Legislature from enacting a statute authorizing a lottery. Thus, we hold that [this statute] may not, without contravening [our constitution], be applied so as to legalize games or activities in which skill does not predominate over chance in determining the outcome.

The prosecution’s contention on appeal to the District Court was that “The Colorado Supreme Court’s finding that poker meets the statutory definition of gambling as a matter of law was binding on the trial court. Therefore, the trial court erred when it permitted an expert to testify that the form of poker played in the present case was not illegal.” The principal case relied on for this proposition is Charnes v. Central City Opera House Association, 773 P.2d 546 (Colo.1989).

On appeal the District Court, sitting as an appellate court under applicable Colorado appellate procedure, reversed the pre-trail ruling permitting Professor Hannum to testify. The District Court accepted the prosecution’s argument based on Charnes. It also echoed the ruling of the Pennsylvania Superior Court, saying:

There is a significant distinction between a round of golf [for example] and a poker tournament. In a golf tournament, the players are presented with the same challenge, with each player determining his success by his own skill. Most certainly, some aspect of chance will intercede during a round of golf, such as a shift in the direction of the wind or a fortunate bounce, but chance is not inherent to the game of golf and it will not overcome the skill of the players. On the other hand, a poker player may give himself a statistical advantage through skill or experience, but that player is always subject to defeat when the next card is turned. In poker, the order in which the cards are dealt represents a variable that no level of skill can overcome. Case No. 09CV168, District Court for Weld County, Colorado, August 4, 2009.

The case was appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court, but the petition for review was denied. No. 09SC732, Colorado Supreme Court, Mar. 22, 2010. So, the apparent law on the status of poker in Colorado remains that it is, as a matter of law, a game of chance as was impliedly held in Charnes.

Pages: [1]
Mingle Forum by cartpauj
Version: 1.0.27 ; Page loaded in: 0.031 seconds.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

17 visitors online now
16 guests, 1 members
Max visitors today: 24 at 11:42 am PST
This month: 91 at 01-02-2011 12:30 pm PST
This year: 91 at 01-02-2011 12:30 pm PST
All time: 266 at 11-27-2010 10:58 am PST

© 2009-2011 Make Poker Legal | Short Stacked LLC All Rights Reserved

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • MySpace
  • YouTube