THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE
Act 328 of 1931
750.302 Keeping or occupying common gambling house or building or place where gaming permitted; apparatus used for gaming or gambling; manufacture or possession of gaming or gambling apparatus for sale.
Sec. 302.
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), any person, or his or her agent or employee who, directly or indirectly, keeps, occupies, or assists in keeping or occupying any common gambling house or any building or place where gaming is permitted or suffered or who suffers or permits on any premises owned, occupied, or controlled by him or her any apparatus used for gaming or gambling or who shall use such apparatus for gaming or gambling in any place within this state, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year or a fine of not more than $1,000.00.
(2) This section does not prohibit the manufacture of gaming or gambling apparatus or the possession of gaming or gambling apparatus by the manufacturer of the apparatus solely for sale outside of this state, or for sale to a gambling establishment operating within this state in compliance with the laws of this state, if applicable, and in compliance with the laws of the United States, provided the manufacturer meets or exceeds federal government requirements in regard to manufacture, storage, and transportation.
History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 ;-- CL 1948, 750.302 ;-- Am. 1989, Act 85, Imd. Eff. June 20, 1989 ;-- Am. 2002, Act 672, Eff. Mar. 31, 2003
FormerLaw Notes:
See sections 2 and 11 of Act 176 of 1925, being CL 1929, §§ 9122 and 9131.
Notes of Decisions
People v. Lopez, 466 N.W.2d 397 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 10× “535 (count I); (2) permitting the use of a gambling apparatus on their premises, MCL 750.302; MSA 28.534 (count II); and (3) permitting gambling at a bar, MCL 436.”
People v. Johns, 59 N.W.2d 20 (Mich. 1953).
· cites it 3× “Defendant and appellant, Ike Johns, together with 2 other defendants, was charged with violating the provisions of CL 1948, §§ 750.302 and 750.303 (Stat Ann §§ 28.534 and 28.”
People v. Hollman, 162 N.W.2d 817 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968).
· cites it 2× “[2] CL 1948, § 750.302 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.534). [1] In its brief the prosecution claims there were 62 witnesses endorsed on the information and there is a serious question whether they will all still be available at the time of the trial which this court has ordered.”
Oakland Cnty. Prosecutor v. 46th Dist. Judge, 256 N.W.2d 776 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977).
“Furthermore, there have been various exceptions made by the Legislature where they have seen fit to exclude certain types of games and the allowance of lottery and bingo with further exceptions provided in MCLA 750.”
People v. Medcoff, 73 N.W.2d 537 (Mich. 1955).
“535); CL 1948, § 750.302 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.534). They have appealed from a denial of their motion for new trial and fundamentally raise but 1 question.”
Michigan Gaming Inst., Inc v. State Bd. of Educ., 536 N.W.2d 289 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “The school's operators could be charged under MCL 750.302; MSA 28.534 as persons who indirectly assist in the keeping of a gaming house, and the students could be charged as loiterers in a place of illegal occupation.”
People v. Braylock, 324 N.W.2d 530 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).
“533, the misdemeanor of accepting wagers; under MCL 750.302; MSA 28.534, the misdemeanor of operating a gaming house; and under MCL 750.”
United States v. Dakota, 666 F. Supp. 989 (W.D. Mich. 1985).
“Furthermore, there have been various exceptions made by the Legislature where they have seen fit to exclude certain types of games and the allowance of lottery and bingo with further exceptions provided in M.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.302(1) — 1 case
People v. Lopez, 466 N.W.2d 397 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991).
“535 (count I); (2) permitting the use of a gambling apparatus on their premises, MCL 750.302; MSA 28.534 (count II); and (3) permitting gambling at a bar, MCL 436.”
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.