State v. Young

95 N.E.3d 420 (2018)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

State v. Young

Ohio Court of Appeals
95 N.E.3d 420 (2018)

Facts

Kenneth Young and Lonnie Bridges (defendants) were charged with gambling in violation of Ohio law based on alleged dice-sliding—i.e., setting the dice to a specific number and then spinning the dice to ensure that they landed on that number, rather than allowing the dice to tumble naturally. Ohio’s gaming statute prohibited knowingly wagering on the outcome of a casino game after acquiring knowledge that was not available to all players about the outcome of the game. The statute further prohibited claiming money from a casino game with the intent to defraud. At trial, the state (plaintiff) presented evidence that in July 2015, Young, Bridges, and a third man had engaged in dice-sliding at a craps table at a Cleveland casino. The state’s presentation included surveillance video of the dice-sliding and testimony from the casino’s surveillance supervisor about how the three men had worked together to position themselves advantageously at the table, manipulate the dice, bet on each other’s rolls, and distract casino personnel so that they could slide the dice and alter the outcome of the game. The state also presented testimony concerning previous dice-sliding activity by Young and Bridges at other casinos. The jury found Young and Bridges guilty. Following a restitution hearing at which the state presented credible evidence that the casino had lost $39,342 from the dice-sliding operation, the court found Young and Bridges liable to the casino for $39,342 in restitution. Young appealed, asserting, among other claims, that Ohio’s gaming statute was unconstitutionally vague as applied to dice-sliding, that the court had improperly admitted evidence of the previous dice-sliding, that the conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence and was against the manifest weight of the evidence, and that the restitution award was improper.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (McCormack, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 814,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 814,000 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership