People v. Settles
78 P.2d 274, 1938 Cal. App. LEXIS 424, 29 Cal. App. Supp. 2d 781 (1938)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A mistaken belief that an activity is legal, even if based on a city-issued license, is not a defense to a state crime that does not require specific intent. The test for whether a game constitutes an illegal lottery is whether chance or skill is the dominant factor in determining the outcome.
Facts:
- Defendants were employees operating a game for their employer.
- The proprietors of the business had obtained a license from the city of Los Angeles after the city's police commission determined the game was one of 'skill.'
- Defendants were aware of this license and believed their operation of the game was lawful.
- The game required a player to first cover a row of numbers on a card, an element of chance.
- After covering the numbers, the player was required to throw a dart and land it within a small circle in three attempts to win, an element of skill.
- The prize for winning was not money, but coupons for the right to play future games free of charge.
Procedural Posture:
- The Defendants were charged with running a lottery in the municipal court of the City of Los Angeles.
- Following a trial, a jury found the Defendants guilty.
- The Defendants appealed their convictions to the Appellate Department of the Superior Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a game considered an illegal lottery under state law if chance is a dominant factor in determining the outcome, even if the game also involves an element of skill and the operators mistakenly believed it was legal based on a city-issued license?
Opinions:
Majority - Shaw, P. J.
Yes, a game is considered an illegal lottery if chance is the dominant factor, and an operator's mistaken belief in its legality is not a defense. The defendants' reliance on a city license does not excuse them, as this constitutes a mistake of law, which is not a defense for a general intent crime like running a lottery. The state lottery law, enacted under the state's police power, cannot be overridden by a municipal ordinance or a city commission's determination; thus, no estoppel prevents the state's prosecution. The prize, a right to play future games for free, qualifies as 'property' under the broad definition in the Penal Code because it is a contractual obligation and a 'thing in action.' The dispositive legal test is whether skill or chance is the 'dominant factor' in determining the game's result. Because the trial court gave conflicting instructions—one correctly stating the dominant factor test and another erroneously stating that any element of chance makes a game a lottery—and improperly shifted the burden of proof to the defendants, the conviction cannot stand.
Analysis:
This case establishes the 'dominant factor' test as the controlling standard in California for distinguishing illegal games of chance (lotteries) from legal games of skill. It firmly rejects mistake of law as a defense for general intent crimes, clarifying that reliance on a municipal permit does not shield a defendant from prosecution under a conflicting state law. The decision also underscores the hierarchy of legal authority, affirming that state criminal statutes on matters of statewide concern supersede local ordinances and administrative decisions. This precedent is critical for analyzing the legality of modern games that blend elements of skill and chance and for defining the limits of local government authority.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Settles