167.147 Possession
of a gambling device; defense.
(1) A person commits the crime of possession of a gambling device if, with
knowledge of the character thereof, the person manufactures, sells, transports,
places or possesses, or conducts or negotiates a transaction affecting or
designed to affect ownership, custody or use of:
(a) A slot
machine; or
(b) Any other
gambling device, believing that the device is to be used in promoting unlawful
gambling activity.
(2) Possession of
a gambling device is a Class A misdemeanor.
(3) It is a
defense to a charge of possession of a gambling device if the slot machine or
gambling device that caused the charge to be brought was manufactured:
(a) Prior to 1900
and is not operated for purposes of unlawful gambling; or
(b) More than 25
years before the date on which the charge was brought and:
(A) Is located in
a private residence;
(B) Is not
operated for the purposes of unlawful gambling; and
(C) Has
permanently affixed to it by the manufacturer, the manufacturer’s name and
either the date of manufacture or the serial number. [1971 c.743 §269; 1977
c.264 §1; 1983 c.403 §1; 1993 c.781 §1; 1995 c.577 §1]
167.150 [Repealed by 1961 c.579 §2]
167.151 [1961 c.579 §1; 1963 c.480 §1;
repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]
167.152 [1955 c.494 §1; repealed by 1971
c.743 §432]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases, 1974–1997 · leading case:
Hendrix v. McKee, 575 P.2d 134 (Or. 1978).
Hendrix v. McKee, 575 P.2d 134 (Or. 1978).
· cites it 3× “” 7 *130 Is this contract illegal or against public policy in the sense outlined above? ORS 167.147 states: "(1) A person commits the crime of possession of a gambling device if, with knowledge of the character thereof, he manufactures, sells, transports, places or possesses, or…”
State v. Langan, 652 P.2d 800 (Or. 1982).
· cites it 6× “Under ORS 167.147, the basis of one of the two offenses of which defendant was convicted, one commits a crime if, with the requisite knowledge and belief, one possesses or enters into various transactions concerning a "slot machine" or "any other gambling device.”
State v. Harelson, 938 P.2d 763 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
“164, and possession of a slot machine, ORS 167.147, arising from devices found during a search of his house for Native American artifacts that he took during the looting.”
State v. Oregon City Elks Lodge No. 1189, 520 P.2d 900 (Or. Ct. App. 1974).
“Defendant was convicted of possession of gambling devices, ORS 167.147, and promoting gambling in the second degree, ORS 167.”
State v. Wright, 537 P.2d 130 (Or. Ct. App. 1975).
· cites it 6× “"(2) Whenever it appears to the court that the gambling device has been possessed in violation of ORS 167.147, the court shall adjudge forfeiture thereof and shall order the sheriff to destroy the device and to deliver any coins taken therefrom to the county treasurer, who shall…”
State v. Langan, 634 P.2d 794 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 2× “The remaining part of defendant’s third contention — that the trial court erred in failing to give his requested instructions explaining the elements of ORS 167.147, 2 — is answered by the fact that the instruction given by the court 3 sufficiently covered the law and was "but…”
State v. Hansen, 816 P.2d 706 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 3× “ORS 167.147. The cases were consolidated for trial and appeal.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.147(1) — 3 cases
State v. Langan, 652 P.2d 800 (Or. 1982).
“Under ORS 167.147, the basis of one of the two offenses of which defendant was convicted, one commits a crime if, with the requisite knowledge and belief, one possesses or enters into various transactions concerning a "slot machine" or "any other gambling device.”
State v. Langan, 634 P.2d 794 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
“The remaining part of defendant’s third contention — that the trial court erred in failing to give his requested instructions explaining the elements of ORS 167.147, 2 — is answered by the fact that the instruction given by the court 3 sufficiently covered the law and was "but…”
State v. Hansen, 816 P.2d 706 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
“ORS 167.147. The cases were consolidated for trial and appeal.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.147(3) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.147(l)(b) — 1 case
Hendrix v. McKee, 575 P.2d 134 (Or. 1978).
“” 7 *130 Is this contract illegal or against public policy in the sense outlined above? ORS 167.147 states: "(1) A person commits the crime of possession of a gambling device if, with knowledge of the character thereof, he manufactures, sells, transports, places or possesses, or…”
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.