## Facts

- Kenneth Young and Lonnie Bridges were charged under Ohio’s casino-gaming law after prosecutors alleged they cheated at a Cleveland casino craps table by “dice-sliding”—setting the dice to a chosen number and then spinning/sliding them so they would land on that number instead of tumbling randomly.
- The State’s evidence focused on a July 2015 incident in which Young, Bridges, and a third man allegedly worked together at the table to increase their ability to control outcomes and avoid detection.
- The State introduced casino surveillance video and testimony from the casino’s surveillance supervisor describing coordinated conduct: strategically positioning at the table, manipulating the dice, betting on each other’s rolls, and distracting casino personnel while the dice were slid and outcomes were altered.
- The charged conduct was tied to statutory prohibitions on (1) knowingly wagering on a casino game after acquiring knowledge about the game’s outcome not available to all players, and (2) claiming or collecting money from a casino game with intent to defraud.
- Over objection, the trial court admitted testimony about prior similar dice-sliding activity by Young and Bridges at other casinos, offered to show intent, knowledge, and a plan rather than character.
- A jury found Young (and Bridges at the joint trial) guilty of the gambling-related offenses.
- After a restitution hearing, the trial court credited the casino’s loss calculations and ordered restitution of $39,342 for the casino’s losses attributable to the dice-sliding operation; Young appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Ohio’s casino-gaming statute was unconstitutionally vague as applied to dice-sliding because it allegedly failed to give fair notice that sliding/spinning dice (rather than rolling) was prohibited.
2. Whether the trial court erred by admitting evidence of prior dice-sliding incidents at other casinos under Evid. R. 404(B).
3. Whether Young’s convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
4. Whether the $39,342 restitution order was supported by competent, credible evidence and was properly tied to the conduct of conviction.

## Decision

- The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas.
- The court held the casino-gaming statute was not void for vagueness as applied: it gave adequate notice that manipulating game outcomes through special knowledge/control and claiming winnings with intent to defraud is prohibited.
- The court held the other-acts evidence of prior dice-sliding was admissible for proper purposes (such as intent, knowledge, and plan) and was not admitted solely to show propensity.
- The court found the State’s proof—especially the surveillance video and the surveillance supervisor’s testimony about how the group acted together—was sufficient for a rational juror to convict, and the jury did not clearly lose its way on credibility.
- The court upheld restitution, concluding the loss amount of $39,342 was supported by credible testimony and calculations linking the casino’s losses to the dice-sliding scheme.

## Legal Principles

- A statute is unconstitutionally vague only if it fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what conduct is prohibited or fails to provide standards that prevent arbitrary enforcement; an as-applied challenge fails when the defendant’s conduct falls within the statute’s plain prohibitions.
- Under Ohio Evid. R. 404(B), evidence of other acts may be admitted for a non-character purpose (including intent, knowledge, plan, or absence of mistake) and may be excluded if unfair prejudice substantially outweighs probative value.
- Sufficiency of the evidence asks whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Manifest-weight review considers the entire record and defers to the jury on credibility unless the jury clearly lost its way and created a manifest miscarriage of justice.
- Restitution must be based on competent, credible evidence of the victim’s economic loss and must bear a direct relationship to the criminal conduct for which the defendant was convicted.

## Conclusion

State v. Young upheld Kenneth Young’s convictions arising from a craps-table dice-sliding scheme at a Cleveland casino, rejecting his as-applied vagueness challenge to Ohio’s casino-gaming statute, approving admission of prior similar dice-sliding evidence for intent/plan purposes, finding the convictions supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight, and affirming a $39,342 restitution award supported by credible loss calculations tied to the cheating operation.


State v. Young, 95 N.E.3d 420 (2018)