People v. Hunt
New York City Criminal Court
616 N.Y.S.2d 168, 162 Misc. 2d 70 (1994)
- Written by Brett Stavin, JD
Facts
Eric Hunt (defendant) was alleged by the people of the state of New York (the people) (plaintiff) to have illegally possessed a gambling device and promoted gambling in the second degree. Specifically, Hunt was charged with running a game of three-card monte. As described by the people, the game of three-card monte involved a dealer showing three cards to a player, including one deemed a court card. The three cards were then turned face down on a flat surface and shuffled around. The player then had to attempt to identify the court card. If the player successfully identified the court card, he or she won; if not, the dealer won. The dealer’s objective was therefore to shuffle the cards faster than the player could visually track them, and vice versa. Hunt moved to dismiss on the basis that the accusations were facially insufficient. Hunt argued that three-card monte was a game of skill, not chance, and therefore could not constitute gambling. In particular, Hunt argued that the game pitted the player’s visual-tracking abilities versus the dealer’s shuffling abilities. In response, the people argued that three-card monte was a game of chance because the commonsense understanding of the game was that the player had a one in three chance of winning.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Parker, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.