Bell Gardens Bicycle Club v. Department of Justice
36 Cal.App.4th 717, 42 Cal. Rptr. 2d 730, 95 Daily Journal DAR 9135 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A gambling scheme constitutes an illegal lottery if it includes the elements of prize, consideration, and a result determined predominantly by chance, even if that scheme is appended to a legal game of skill.
Facts:
- California card clubs, including Bell Gardens Bicycle Club, offered a poker game variation with an added 'jackpot' feature.
- In this variation, a fixed sum of money was withdrawn from the antes or bets of each regular poker hand and placed into a separate, accumulating jackpot fund.
- The jackpot was awarded to a player holding a specific, second-best possible hand (e.g., a 'sixty-four' in lowball) only when another player in the same game held the best possible hand (e.g., a 'wheel').
- The jackpot prize was an independent sum of money, separate from the main poker pot, which accumulated over time, with awards reaching tens of thousands of dollars.
- The odds of winning the jackpot were extremely low, comparable to state lottery games.
- Expert poker players testified that the skills used to win a regular poker hand, such as bluffing and strategy, do not help a player win the jackpot.
- Testimony also indicated that the presence of skilled players at a table actually decreases the likelihood of a jackpot being won, and an unskilled player who plays every hand to completion would likely win more jackpots over time than a skilled player.
- Individual players have no control over the random order of the cards dealt to themselves or to other players.
Procedural Posture:
- The California Attorney General issued an opinion concluding that jackpot poker is an illegal lottery.
- State officials sent letters to registered card clubs, informing them that playing jackpot poker would be considered a violation of the Penal Code starting November 1, 1989.
- Various card clubs (plaintiffs) filed separate complaints in the superior courts of four different counties, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against state and local officials (defendants).
- These actions were coordinated and brought before the Los Angeles County Superior Court (trial court).
- Upon cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court found in favor of the Card Clubs, ruling that jackpot poker is not a lottery.
- The state defendants, as appellants, filed a timely notice of appeal from the trial court's judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the 'jackpot' feature appended to a legal game of poker constitute an illegal lottery under California Penal Code section 319 when winning the jackpot requires the chance occurrence of two specific, rare hands appearing simultaneously in the same game?
Opinions:
Majority - Woods (Fred), J.
Yes, the jackpot feature appended to a legal game of poker constitutes an illegal lottery. California law defines a lottery as any scheme with three elements: a prize, consideration, and distribution determined predominantly by chance. The court found that the jackpot feature must be analyzed separately from the underlying poker game. The jackpot itself clearly involves a prize (the accumulated fund) and consideration (the money taken from each pot). The dispositive factor is chance. The court held that under California's 'dominance test,' a game is a lottery if chance is the dominating factor, not necessarily the sole factor. Winning the jackpot depends entirely on the fortuitous, random, and simultaneous dealing of two extremely rare hands, an event over which players have no skillful control. The skills of poker—bluffing, psychology, and strategic betting—are irrelevant to achieving this chance outcome. Expert testimony confirmed that the odds are astronomically low and skill does not aid, and may even hinder, the chances of winning the jackpot. Therefore, the jackpot feature is a severable and illegal lottery, regardless of its connection to the legal game of poker.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies California's 'predominance test' for illegal lotteries, clarifying that a game need not be one of 'pure chance' to be unlawful. It establishes the important precedent that an illegal gambling scheme cannot be sanitized by merely attaching it to a legal game of skill. The ruling requires courts to analyze hybrid games by severing the chance-based component from the skill-based one and evaluating it independently. This approach prevents operators from circumventing anti-lottery statutes through clever game design and has significant implications for the regulation of any game that combines elements of skill and chance.
Unlock the full brief for Bell Gardens Bicycle Club v. Department of Justice