2021 Colorado Code
Title 18 - Criminal Code
Article 10 - Gambling
§ 18-10-103. Gambling - Professional Gambling - Offenses

1. [ ] A person who engages in gambling commits a class 1 petty offense.
2. A person who engages in professional gambling commits a class 1 misdemeanor. If he is a repeating gambling offender, it is a class 5 felony.

History. Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 478, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 40-10-103 . L. 2021: Entire section amended,(SB 21-271), ch. 462, p. 3208, § 338, effective March 1, 2022.

Section 803(2) of chapter 462 (SB 21-271), Session Laws of Colorado 2021, provides that the act changing this section applies to offenses committed on or after March 1, 2022.

Annotator's note. Since § 18-10-103 is similar to former § 40-10-8 , C.R.S. 1963, and laws antecedent thereto, relevant cases construing those provisions have been included in the annotations to this section.

Construction of section. The offense punished by this section was not a crime at common law, and under ordinary circumstances the statute would be subjected to strict construction. The general assembly, however, specifically provided to the contrary in § 18-10-101 . Care, therefore, need be exercised that neither by illogical construction nor by loose language be it so circumscribed as to defeat its purpose and usefulness. McBride v. People, 126 Colo. 277 , 248 P.2d 725 (1952).

Constitutionality of section. The fact that certain types of gambling were allowed by statute did not deny the petitioner, who was charged with gambling violations, equal protection of the law, especially where § 18-10-107 and this section, under which charges of gambling were issued against the petitioner, applied equally to all persons and made no classifications or distinctions. Smaldone v. People, 173 Colo. 385 , 479 P.2d 973 (1971).

Playing for purpose of gain violates section. Under a charge of gambling, whether defendants played at a game for a wager with each other or with others is immaterial. If they played for the purpose of gain, whether against each other or with others, they violated the statute. Wilson v. People, 103 Colo. 150 , 84 P.2d 463 (1938).

Question of residence not material under section. An information which charges in the language of the statute that defendants engaged in gambling for a livelihood is not insufficient because it does not further allege that they were without any fixed residence, gambling for a livelihood being a violation of the statute irrespective of the question of residence. Wilson v. People, 103 Colo. 150 , 84 P.2d 463 (1938).

Two persons may be tried jointly for gambling for a livelihood although the intent of each to secure a livelihood was personal to himself. Wilson v. People, 103 Colo. 150 , 84 P.2d 463 (1938).

Introduction of reputation evidence not reversible error. Where evidence of the defendant's reputation of gambling for a livelihood is corroborative of other evidence, which is sufficient in itself to support the conviction, the introduction of reputation evidence does not constitute reversible error and the holding is limited to the offense of gambling for a livelihood. McNulty v. People, 180 Colo. 246 , 504 P.2d 335 (1972).

For purposes of determining the legality of an ex parte order for wiretapping under section 16-15-102 , the proposed intervention must involve a person who has previously been convicted of professional gambling twice within 5 years, so that a felony is authorized upon conviction. United States v. McNulty, 729 F.2d 1243 (10th Cir. 1983).

Nonprofit corporation's fundraising which involved casino-type gambling with play money violated this section because participants were risking a thing of value for gain contingent in whole or in part upon chance and the gambling, although incidental to a social relationship, was participated in by persons other than natural persons and was conducted under circumstances in which persons participated in professional gambling as intended by the statute. Charnes v. Central City Opera House, 773 P.2d 546 (Colo. 1989).

Applied in People ex rel. Brown v. District Court, 196 Colo. 359 , 585 P.2d 593 (1978); People v. Miller, 199 Colo. 32 , 604 P.2d 36 (1979).