Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 50-27-27 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 50-27-27 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 50-27-27

TITLE 50 STATE GOVERNMENT

Section 27. Lottery for Education, 50-27-1 through 50-27-104.

ARTICLE 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS

50-27-27. Penalty for falsely making, altering, forging, uttering, passing, or counterfeiting ticket; penalty for attempting to influence winning of prize.

  1. Any person who, with intent to defraud, falsely makes, alters, forges, utters, passes, or counterfeits a state lottery ticket shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $50,000.00 or imprisonment for not longer than five years or both.
  2. Any person who influences or attempts to influence the winning of a prize through the use of coercion, fraud, deception, or tampering with lottery equipment or materials shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $50,000.00 or by imprisonment for not longer than five years or both.

(Code 1981, §50-27-27, enacted by Ga. L. 1992, p. 3173, § 2.)

Law reviews.

- For article, "State Government: Lottery for Education," see 30 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 257 (2013).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Defendant's knowing presentation of two stolen winning lottery tickets for redemption was a violation of O.C.G.A. § 50-27-27(b) of the Georgia Lottery for Education Act, which forbade influencing the winning of a prize through the use of fraud and deception. Defendant's presentation of the tickets, not the receipt of a lottery prize, was the completed criminal act. Riddle v. State, 301 Ga. App. 138, 687 S.E.2d 165 (2009).

Indictment sufficient.

- Trial court did not err in convicting the defendant of attempting to influence the winning of a prize by tampering with lottery equipment in violation of the Georgia Lottery for Education Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-27-27(b), because the indictment informed the defendant that the defendant was accused of attempting to influence the winning of Georgia Lottery prizes by tampering with lottery materials, and the defendant was apprised of what the defendant had to be prepared to defend against at trial, the defendant was not harmed by the erroneous reference to "falsely uttering" a lottery ticket, which was proscribed under § 50-27-27(a). Doe v. State, 306 Ga. App. 348, 702 S.E.2d 669 (2010), aff'd, 290 Ga. 667, 725 S.E.2d 234 (2012).

Actions for purpose of influencing winning or prize..

- Georgia Lottery for Education Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-27-27(b), applied to the defendant's conduct because the defendant's actions were for the purpose of influencing the winning of a prize offered by the Georgia Lottery Corporation; the defendant took lottery tickets in order to win lottery prizes personally, even though such conduct deprived other customers of the opportunity to lawfully purchase those tickets, and the defendant's action of leaning over the counter that stored the tickets, rolling the tickets off the plastic wheels on which the tickets were housed, ripping the tickets off the rolls, and taking the tickets for the defendant's own use constituted tampering with lottery materials in violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-10-94(a). Doe v. State, 306 Ga. App. 348, 702 S.E.2d 669 (2010), aff'd, 290 Ga. 667, 725 S.E.2d 234 (2012).

Tampering.

- Defendant's act of leaning over a store counter, tearing lottery tickets from the tickets' dispenser without paying for the tickets, and scratching the tickets to see if the defendant had won a prize fell within the plain meaning of the term "tampering" in O.C.G.A. § 50-27-27, in that the defendant's act forever changed the odds of winning for paying customers and directly influenced the potential winning of lottery prizes by future customers. If the defendant's activity did not constitute "tampering" within the meaning of § 50-27-27, the express intent of the Georgia General Assembly in § 50-27-2 that state lottery revenues be maximized and that the lottery be operated with integrity and dignity would be frustrated. Doe v. State, 290 Ga. 667, 725 S.E.2d 234 (2012).

Jury instructions.

- Trial court did not err in failing to instruct the jury that the state was required to prove that the offense of attempting to influence the winning of a prize by tampering with lottery equipment in violation of the Georgia Lottery for Education Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-27-27(b), was committed in the same manner as set forth in the indictment because no confusion could have resulted from reading the indictment as written since the trial court instructed the jury: (i) no person would be convicted of any crime unless and until each element of the crime as charged was proven beyond a reasonable doubt; and (ii) the burden of proof rested upon the state to prove every material allegation of the indictment and every essential element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt; in addition, the trial court did not err in charging the jury as a result of having read the indictment, including the erroneous reference to "falsely uttering" a lottery ticket because the body of the indictment clearly defined and described the offense the defendant was charged with having committed. Doe v. State, 306 Ga. App. 348, 702 S.E.2d 669 (2010), aff'd, 290 Ga. 667, 725 S.E.2d 234 (2012).

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 50-27-27

Total Results: 1  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Doe v. State, 290 Ga. 667 (Ga. 2012).

Cited 7 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 5, 2012 | 725 S.E.2d 234, 2012 Fulton County D. Rep. 748

...He stole the tickets by leaning over a store counter and tearing the tickets from their dispenser. He scratched the tickets to see if he had won a prize, and, when he saw that he had not, he threw all of the tickets away. Doe was indicted for “Falsely Uttering a State Lottery Ticket” *668under OCGA § 50-27-27. Specifically, Doe was accused of taking approximately 65 scratch-off tickets “with the intent to influence the winning of Georgia Lottery prizes by tampering with lottery materials.” See OCGA § 50-27-27 (b)....
...This Court granted Doe’s petition for a writ of certiorari to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the theft of lottery tickets from a lottery ticket dispenser was sufficient to constitute tampering with lottery materials within the meaning of OCGA § 50-27-27. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. Our decision in this case turns on the proper interpretation of OCGA § 50-27-27 (b)....
...re surplusage. At the same time, we must seek to effectuate the intent of the legislature. (Citations omitted.) Slakman v. Continental Cas. Co., 277 Ga. 189, 191 (587 SE2d 24) (2003). Pursuant to the Georgia Lottery for Education Act (of which OCGA § 50-27-27 is a part), the Georgia Legislature has expressly provided “[t]hat lottery games shall be operated and managed in a manner which provides continuing entertainment to the public, maximizes revenues, and ensures that the lottery is operated with integrity and dignity.” OCGA § 50-27-2 (3). It is with this express legislative intent in mind that we must discern the plain meaning of the term “tampering” in OCGA § 50-27-27....
...by scratching off his stolen tickets and discarding them when he realized that his improper efforts to influence the winning of a lottery prize had failed. In short, if Doe’s activity did not constitute “tampering” within the meaning of OCGA § 50-27-27, the express intent of the Legislature that State lottery revenues be maximized and that the lottery be operated with integrity and dignity would be frustrated. OCGA § 50-27-2. We therefore decline to adopt such an interpretation of OCGA § 50-27-27, as it would “emasculate the purpose of the statute [and] impair the intention of the legislature.” Andrews v. State, 8 Ga. App. 700, 701 (70 SE 111) (1911). By tampering with lottery materials in the manner that he did, Doe could properly be found guilty of violating OCGA § 50-27-27....