State v. Mola
| Decision Date | 05 December 1941 |
| Citation | 128 Conn. 407,23 A.2d 126 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. MOLA et al. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; King, Judge.
James Mola and Lewis Mola and others were charged in an information with the crime of conspiracy to maintain a lottery, and from a judgment of conviction on a verdict by a jury, the named defendants appeal. The other defendants withdrew their appeals.
No error.
Argued before MALTBIE, C. J., and AVERY, BROWN, JENNINGS, and ELLS, JJ.
Sydney P. Simons and Henry Greenstein, both of Bridgeport, for appellants.
Lorin W. Willis, State's Atty., and Otto J. Saur, Asst. State's Atty., both of Bridgeport, for appellee.
The information in this case charged that the appellants, with thirteen others, conspired "to set up and maintain a lottery" and that in furtherance of the conspiracy each participated "in the distribution and sale of lottery tickets, and the collection of the proceeds thereof." All the defendants were found guilty and the appellants have appealed on the sole ground that while the jury could have found them guilty of a conspiracy to carry on policy playing in violation of § 6337 of the General Statutes, they could not properly find them guilty of conspiring to conduct a lottery or sell lottery tickets. The gaming carried on by the defendants is popularly known as the "numbers game" or "betting on numbers." It is a game of chance in which the player selects any number he chooses containing three digits and makes a bet on that number. He gives the amount of his bet and the number to a "runner," who enters it on a small pad which, by the use of carbon sheets, produces two copies in addition to the original. The player receives one copy, the runner retains the other, and the original, with the amount of the bet less a commission to which the runner is entitled, is delivered to a collector. The winning number is determined each day by a computation based upon the prices paid on a parimutuel betting machine at a designated track for horse racing, as calculated and published in a certain New York newspaper. The holder of a winning number receives, through the runner, six hundred times the amount of his bet. The funds to make this payment are furnished by a "bank," through the collector. The defendant James Mola was a collector and the defendant Lewis Mola participated in the enterprise by delivering to a New York man the collections made by James Mola and delivering to James Mola the money furnished by that man with which to pay those holding the winning numbers.
In State v. Carpenter, 60 Conn. 97, 102, 22 A. 497, we quoted a definition of "policy" taken from Webster's Dictionary: "A method of gambling by betting as to what numbers will be drawn in a lottery." It may be conceded that the form of gambling involved in this case constituted the offense "commonly known as policy" within the provisions of § 6337. It does not follow, however, that it does not constitute a lottery. The three elements generally held to characterize a lottery are "a prize, a chance, and a price"; State v. Dorau, 124 Conn. 160, 168, 198 A. 573, 576; or, as stated in Commonwealth v. Wall, 295 Mass. 70, 72, 3 N.E. 2d 28, 29, "a chance for a prize for a price." See Bishop, Statutory Crimes, 3d Ed, § 952. It has been generally held that policy playing is a form of lottery. Forte v. United States, 65 App.D.C. 355, 83 F. 2d 612, 615, 105 A.L.R. 300; People v. Hines, 284 N.Y. 93, 101, 29 N.E.2d 483.
The defendants misconceive the scope of § 6337. It is primarily directed at the keeping or frequenting of places where the game of chance "commonly known as policy" is carried on or where bets or wagers are or are reputed to be made upon the result of a drawing in any lottery or of the drawing of any numbers by chance. It also provides a penalty where any person "shall write, sell, bargain, exchange, give, transfer, deliver, buy, collect or receive, or be concerned in writing, selling, bargaining,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Coleman
...523-531; State v. Beaulieu, 164 Conn. 620, 625, 325 A.2d 263; State v. Rafanello, 151 Conn. 453, 456-457, 199 A.2d 13; State v. Mola, 128 Conn. 407, 410-411, 23 A.2d 126; State v. McGee, 81 Conn. 696, 699, 72 A. 141. The constitution simply assures the accused the right to be apprised by th......
-
State v. Vincent
...done to him because of the language of the information. State v. Rafanello, 151 Conn. 453, 457, 199 A.2d 13 (1964); State v. Mola, [128 Conn. 407, 410, 23 A.2d 126 (1941) ]; 5 Wharton, Criminal Law and Procedure § 2056." State v. Sumner, 178 Conn. 163, 168, 422 A.2d 299 (1979). Both the cla......
-
State v. Jones
...of which seasonable advantage must be made at the time of trial. State v. Lorusso, 151 Conn. 189, 192, 195 A.2d 429; State v. Mola, 128 Conn. 407, 410-411, 23 A.2d 126; State v. Miglin, 101 Conn. 8, 11, 125 A. 250; State v. McGee, 80 Conn. 614, 617, 69 A. As this court said in an analogous ......
-
Jones v. State
...some tangible object in the form of a slip or a ticket but also being 'concerned' with selling or exchanging it. See State v. Mola, 128 Conn. 407, 409, 23 A.2d 126. One is concerned in a certain matter when he has some connection with it, when it affects his interests or involves him. Then,......