Ark. Code Ann. » Title 5 Chapter 66
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 5-66-101 (2026)

Construction of statutes

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. In their construction of the statutes prohibiting gaming, the judges of the several courts in this state shall construe the statutes liberally, with a view of preventing persons from evading the penalty of the law by changing of the name or the invention of new names or devices that now are, or may hereafter be, brought into practice, in any and in all kinds of gaming, and all general terms of descriptions shall be so construed as to have effect, and include all such games and devices as are not specially named.
  2. In all cases in which construction is necessary, the construction shall be in favor of the prohibition and against the offender.

History. Rev. Stat., ch. 44, div. 6, art. 3, § 13; C. & M. Dig., § 2645; Pope's Dig., § 3335; A.S.A. 1947, § 41-3265.

Case Notes

Gaming Defined.

Gaming is the risking of money, between two or more persons, on a contest or chance of any kind, where one must be loser and the other gainer. The definition of gambling, previously set forth by the court, which comports with the common understanding of the term “gambling,” prevents the statutes from being void-for-vagueness. State v. Torres, 309 Ark. 422, 831 S.W.2d 903 (1992).

Jurisdiction.

The general rule prohibiting chancery courts from interfering with prosecutorial functions applied, and the chancery court had no jurisdiction to enjoin the prosecuting attorney from prosecuting any operation that constitutes gambling as described in the Ark. Const., Art. 19, § 14, and defined in this section. Dickey v. Signal Peak Enters., 340 Ark. 276, 9 S.W.3d 517 (2000).

Role of Chancery Courts.

There is a narrow exception to the rule that chancery courts will refrain from interfering with prosecutorial functions, but that exception is limited to the chancery court's protection of property rights in the form of lawful businesses; it does not apply to forms of illegal gambling. Dickey v. Signal Peak Enters., 340 Ark. 276, 9 S.W.3d 517 (2000).

Cited: Albright v. Muncrief, 206 Ark. 319, 176 S.W.2d 426 (1944); Bostic v. City of Little Rock, 243 Ark. 50, 418 S.W.2d 619 (1967); McDougal v. State, 324 Ark. 354, 922 S.W.2d 323 (1996); State v. 26 Gaming Machs., 356 Ark. 47, 145 S.W.3d 368 (2004).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1992–2025 · leading case: State v. 26 Gaming MacHines, 145 S.W.3d 368 (Ark. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. 26 Gaming MacHines, 145 S.W.3d 368 (Ark. 2004). · cites it 22× “" Ark.Code Ann. § 5-66-101 (Repl.1997). The Gambling Code prohibits possession of gaming devices: Every person who shall set up, keep, or exhibit any gaming table or gambling device, commonly called A.”
Christian Civic Action Comm. v. McCuen, 884 S.W.2d 605 (Ark. 1994). · cites it 2× “See Ark. Code Ann. §§ 5-66-101 — 5-66-119 (Repl.”
State v. Torres, 831 S.W.2d 903 (Ark. 1992). · cites it 5× “They also challenged Ark. Code Ann. § 5-66-101 (1987), which provides that statutes prohibiting gaming are to be liberally construed, as violative of their constitutional due process guarantees.”
McDougal v. State, 922 S.W.2d 323 (Ark. 1996). · cites it 5× “Finally, he alleged that Ark. Code Ann. § 5-66-101 (Repl. 1993), a statute that requires judges to construe gaming statutes liberally, violated the rule of strict construction of criminal laws.”
Pre-Paid Solutions, Inc. v. City of Little Rock, 34 S.W.3d 360 (Ark. 2001). · cites it 2× “See Ark. Code Ann. §§ 5-66-101 to -119 (Repl.”
Dickey v. Signal Peak Enter., 9 S.W.3d 517 (Ark. 2000). · cites it 2× “Sections 5-66-101 et seq. or by the Arkansas Constitution Article 19, Section 14, but, in fact, are specifically authorized by Ark.”
Mullins v. State, 198 S.W.3d 504 (Ark. 2004). · cites it 4× “Muffins appeals, alleging: (1) the trial court erred in holding Ark. Code Ann. § 5-66-101 (Supp. 2003) constitutional, and (2) the trial court’s ruling in ordering the machines to be forfeited was clearly erroneous.”
Daniels v. State, 285 S.W.3d 205 (Ark. 2008). · cites it 2× “See Ark. Code Ann. §§ 5-66-101 to -119 (Repl.”
Cherokee Nation Bus. LLC v. Arkansas, State of (E.D. Ark. 2025). “§ 5-66-101 . There are some exceptions. For example, parimutuel betting on greyhound and horse races in Crittenden and Garland Counties has been around since the 1930s.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.