DISSENTING OPINION BY
COLVILLE, J.:¶ 11 would affirm the trial court’s order, albeit on different grounds than those presented by that court. I, therefore, dissent.
¶ 2 The Commonwealth has accused Appellants of hosting Texas Hold’em Poker tournaments. Ultimately, for Appellants to be found guilty in this case, the Commonwealth would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellants engaged in “unlawful gambling” by hosting these tournaments. The relevant criminal statute does not define “gambling.” Moreover, as the Majority observes, “[n]either a statute nor case law specifically address the legality of Texas Hold’em Poker.” Majority Opinion at 192.
¶ 3 However, the Statutory Construction Act informs us,
Words and phrases shall be construed according to rules of grammar and according to their common and approved usage; but technical words and phrases and such others as have acquired a peculiar and appropriate meaning or are defined in this part, shall be construed according to such peculiar and appropriate meaning or definition.
1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1903(a). “Gambling” is a technical word that has acquired a peculiar and appropriate meaning. More specifically, an activity constitutes gambling if it has three elements: consideration, chance, and reward. Commonwealth v. Two Elec ironic Poker Game Machines, 502 Pa. 186, 465 A.2d 973, 977 (1983).
¶ 4 It is undisputed that the games played at Appellants’ Texas Hold’em Poker tournaments contained the elements of consideration and reward. Appellants, however, filed a pre-trial petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the Commonwealth could not produce sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against Appellants insomuch as the Commonwealth could not “show that the element of chance dominates and the outcome of the game[s were] determined predominately by chance rather than skill.” Omnibus Pretrial Motion, 10/24/08, at ¶ 11.
¶ 5 “The Commonwealth establishes a prima facie case when it produces evidence that, if accepted as true, would warrant the trial judge to allow the case to go to a jury.” Commonwealth v. Marti, 779 A.2d 1177, 1180 (Pa.Super.2001) (quoting Commonwealth v. Martin, 727 A.2d 1136, 1142 (Pa.Super.1999)). As to the element of chance, the Majority opines “that for a game to constitute gambling, it must be a game where chance predominates rather than skill.” Majority Opinion at 5.
¶ 6 At the hearing on Appellants’ writ of habeas corpus, the only evidence offered by the Commonwealth was the testimony of Pennsylvania State Police Trooper David Darrow. Trooper Darrow primarily described the game played at Appellants’ tournaments. The Trooper did make passing reference to his views on the roles chance and skill played in these games.1 However, the Commonwealth failed to present any evidence which, if accepted as true, would prove that the games played at Appellants’ Texas Hold’em Poker tournaments were games where chance predominated rather than skill. In other words, *199the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden of proof at the hearing.2
¶ 7 Rather than focusing on the evidence presented by the Commonwealth at the hearing and determining whether that evidence, if accepted as true, would be enough to warrant submitting the case to a jury, the trial court looked to, inter alia, treatises and studies in concluding that Texas Hold’em Poker is predominately a game of skill. Although the Majority reaches a different result than that of the trial court, the Majority repeats the mistake of the trial court by failing to examine whether the Commonwealth met its burden of proof at the hearing. Instead, the Majority looks to the decisions of our sister states in concluding that the games played at Appellants’ alleged tournaments constituted gambling.
¶ 8 In my view, the Commonwealth simply failed to meet its burden of establishing a prima facie case in that it failed to produce evidence, if accepted as true, that would warrant the trial judge to allow a jury to decide Appellants’ “unlawful gambling” cases. Consequently, I would affirm the trial court’s order, albeit on different grounds than those put forward by that court.
. It is worth noting that, in Two Electronic Poker Game Machines, supra, in order to prove that the machines at issue in that case were illegal gambling devices, the Commonwealth offered an expert witness who "testified that no skill was involved in playing the game." Two Electronic Poker Game Machines, 465 A.2d at 978. In my view, had the Commonwealth offered similar evidence during Appellants’ hearing, it would have met its burden of proof.