Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

THEATTORNEYGENERAI. June 6, 1962 Honorable Jerry Dellana Opinion No. WW-1343 County Attorney Travis County Courthouse Re: Legality under Article 654, Austin, Texas V.P.C.; of giving a valuable prize by means of a drawing Dear Mr. Dellana: under the facts submitted. You have requested an opinion as to the legality under Article 654 of Vernon's Penal Code of a plan described by you as follows: "Facts: A merchant desires to give away a central air-conditioning unit at the open- ing of a new store and office; it is not necessary for the registrant to be present to win nor to buy anything frcm the store to register, but limits the registrants to the following: "1 . That only one member of a family may register at one time. "2 . That the registrant own a home in Travis County, Texas. "3. That the unit will be installed in a single family residence only, the con- denser being not less than two ton capacity and not greater than five ton capacity. "4. That no employees or their immediate family may participate." Article 6.54,Vernon's Penal Code, prohibits the esta- blishment and operation of a lottery, and the disposition of property by lottery, but does not define a lottery. The courts have, therefore, adopted a definition based upon the term "lottery" and it is well established that three things must occur to constitute an advertising scheme a lottery and these are: (a) A prize or prizes; (b) the award or distribution of the prize or prizes by chance; (c) the pay- ment, either directly or indirectly, by the participant of Hon. Jerry Dellana Page 2 Opinion No. WW-1343 a consideration for the right or privilege of participating. Cole v. State, 112 S.W.2d 725 (Tex.Crim.l937), Brice v. State, 242 S.W.2d 433 (Tex.Crim. 1951), Smith v. State,1274 md 297 (Tex.Crim. 1939). Assuming the facts as you have given them, it is clear that no purchase must be made to become eligible to win the prize if selected, hence there is no consideration paid by the participant. The Court of Criminal Appeals in Brice v. State holds that the going into a store and regist- ering does not constitute the payment of consideration,even though the donor may receive a benefit from the drawing in the way of advertising. Such being the case, in our opinion this plan is not a lottery because of the lack of considera- tion. SUMMARY The advertising plan does not constl- tute a lottery under the facts submitted because of the absence of consideration. Yours very truly, WILL WILSON Attornev General of Texas BY Charles R. Lind Assistant Attorney General CRL:sh APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE: W. V. Geppert, Chairman Pat Bailey Vernon Teofan Jay Howell Milton Richardson REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: Leonard Passmore