AGO 2001-09.

• Case Date: January 18, 2002
• Court: Indiana

Indiana Attorney General Opinions 2002. AGO 2001-09. January 18, 2002Advisory Opinion 2001-9The Honorable Robert L. Meeks Indiana Senate 5840 E. 25 N.LaGrange, IN 46761 RE: Legality of a Skill Slot MachineDear Senator Meeks: This letter responds to your request for an advisory on the following question:

Is the Skill Slot machine in question legal and it should be excluded from the Indiana State Gambling Code, specifically Indiana Code section 35-45-5.1, based on documentation provided.

BRIEF ANSWER Ind. Code § 35-45-5-2 provides that A person who knowingly or intentionally engages in gambling commits unlawful gambling, a Class B misdemeanor.Gambling means risking money or other property for gain, contingent in whole or in part upon lot, chance, or the operation of a gambling device;. Ellipses added.A gambling device is defined by statute as a mechanism that awards money or other property in return for consideration as the result of the operation of an element of chance; . Ellipses added.Ind. Code § 35-45-5-1(1).A gambling device is additionally defined as a mechanism that when operated for a consideration, does not return the same value or property for the same consideration upon each operation.See Ind. Code § 35-45-5-1(2).Knowingly and intentionally maintaining in a place accessible to the public various gambling devices, (including slot machines), listed specifically by statute at Ind. Code § 35-45-5-3(3), is the commission of professional gambling, a Class D felony. The Court of Appeals in the case of State v. Maillard, 695 N.E.2d 637 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998), transfer denied by Cain v. Maillard, 706 N.E.2d 173 (Ind. 1998), was asked to make a declaratory judgment regarding the status of a quarter slide machine and whether it was indeed a gambling device prohibited by statute.The Court held that even where the operation or play of a machine could be deemed lawful because there was an element of skill involved, thus bringing the game within the skill exception to the statutory violation of gambling, this lawful operation or play did not remove the machine itself from the statutory classification of a prohibited gambling device. Therefore, the Court found that because the quarter slide machine did not always return the same value or property for the same consideration upon each operation or play, that although the game itself fell within the statutory skill exception to gambling, the machine itself was a gambling device prohibited by statute. Because...