prosecution involves a gambling device other than a slot
machine, the State must prove that the defendant
believed the device would be used in the advancement of
an unlawful gambling activity. See N.J.S.A. 2C:37-7b.
A “player” is exempt from prosecution under this
statute. N.J.S.A. 2C:37-7.
Possession of one gambling device in the home for
social purposes is not an offense. N.J.S.A. 2C:37-7b.
Similarly, possession of one or more slot machines
manufactured prior to 1941 (known as “antique slot
machines”) is also not a violation of the Code, provided
such slot machines are not used for unauthorized
gambling. Id.
If the possession of a gambling device violates the
Casino Control Offense Act, N.J.S.A. 5:12-1 et seq., the
crime is elevated from a disorderly persons offense to a
misdemeanor, subject to a maximum term of three years
imprisonment and a $25,000 fine. Id. The maximum
fine is increased to $100,000 if the violator is not a
natural person. N.J.S.A. 2C:512-116.
This section does not preempt the municipal
regulation of gambling devices. State (City of Paterson) v.
Khater, 275 N.J. Super. 64 (Law Div. 1994).
XI. GAMBLING OFFENSES JURISDICTION
All gambling offenses under N.J.S.A. 2C:37-1 et seq.
are to be prosecuted in the Superior Court. N.J.S.A.
2C:37-8. However, the prosecution of a disorderly
person’s gambling offense in the Superior Court does not
entitle the defendant to a jury trial. See State v. Tenriero,
183 N.J. Super. 519, 521-23 (Law Div. 1981); R. 3:1-5.
Gambling cases have always received special
sentencing treatment to insure uniformity and to deter
people from entering what is frequently an organized
crime field. State v. Hartye, 208 N.J. Super. 319, 324-26
(App. Div. 1986), aff’d., 105 N.J. 411 (1987). By
administrative directive, all persons convicted of
gambling offenses are sentenced by the assignment judge
or someone specifically designated by him. Id. at 124.
This policy has withstood constitutional scrutiny, State v.
De Stasio, 49 N.J. 247, 254-55, cert. denied, 389 U.S. 830
(1967), and its validity under the Code has also been
upheld. State v. Pych, 213 N.J. Super. 446, 462 (App.
Div. 1986).
A finding that organized crime was operating a
particular gambling activity is sufficient to overcome the
presumption of non-imprisonment for a first offender,
even if that person had a minor role in the operation. State
v. Hartye, 208 N.J. Super. at 326. However,
imprisonment on that basis may take the form of a
sentence of probation with a conditional term of
imprisonment of up to 364 days for the person convicted
of a third-degree crime. Id.XII. RELATIONSHIP TO THE CASINO
CONTROL ACT
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to
prohibit any activity authorized by the “Casino Control
Act,” N.J.S.A. 5:12-1 et seq., or to supersede any provision
of that Act. N.J.S.A. 2C:37-9; see also IGP-East, Inc. v.
Gaming Enforcement Div., 182 N.J. Super. 562, 567
(App. Div. 1982) (holding that a casino craps
tournament authorized by the Casino Control
Commission was not illegal, even though it took on some
indicia of a lottery).