Sufficiency of the evidence for a gambling activities conviction under MCL 432.218(2)(f); Altering the result of a blackjack game; To cheat defined (MCL 432.202(k))

The court held that there was “sufficient evidence defendant altered the result of a blackjack game for a rational jury to find him guilty of illegal gambling activities” under MCL 432.218(2)(f). MCL 432.202(k) defines to cheat as meaning “‘to alter the selection of criteria that determine the result of a gambling game or the amount or frequency of payment in a gambling game . . . .’” The court concluded the “evidence showed, at minimum, that defendant altered the results of the game by keeping a double-down wager, which he should have lost (and did, in fact, lose).” The surveillance video showed him “making a ‘double-down’ wager, meaning [he] could only receive one card and could not rescind his wager. Defendant took back his chips after he received a card, which would have lost him the hand.” The court found that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, this act established that he “cheated under the statutory definition. Contrary to the blackjack rules in effect, defendant ‘alter[ed] the selection of criteria that determine the result of a gambling game’ by taking back his double-down bet. . . . Specifically, [he] engaged in an affirmative act, which violated the criteria to determine the result of the hand. Defendant acted by taking back his wager, violating the rules of blackjack, which did not allow him to ‘push’ a losing hand, i.e., the rules did not allow him to keep his money when he lost the hand. This evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find [he] cheated at the casino game and sustain his conviction.” Affirmed.