## Facts

- Wisconsin charged Robert Michael Gonnelly with three felony counts of issuing worthless checks under Wis. Stat. § 943.24.
- Between November 9 and 21, 1990, Gonnelly cashed three checks at the Geneva Lakes Kennel Club (GLKC) totaling $23,700.
- The checks were later returned for nonsufficient funds.
- For purposes of Gonnelly’s motion to dismiss, the parties stipulated that Gonnelly presented the checks to obtain money to bet on dog races at GLKC and that he in fact used the money to place those wagers.
- The parties also stipulated that GLKC cashed the checks to provide Gonnelly with money to bet on GLKC dog races and that GLKC knew Gonnelly would use the funds for that purpose.
- Gonnelly moved to dismiss, arguing the checks were “gaming contracts” that were void under Wis. Stat. § 895.055 (Wisconsin’s version of the Statute of Queen Anne).
- The circuit court agreed, concluded the checks were void gaming contracts, and dismissed the criminal complaint and information.
- The State appealed, arguing (among other things) that the checks were not gaming contracts, that any gaming contract arose only when bets were placed, that the checks’ negotiable-instrument status mattered, and that later legalization of certain gambling impliedly repealed or limited § 895.055.

## Issues

1. Whether the checks, cashed by GLKC with the mutual understanding they would provide stake money for wagering at GLKC, were “gaming contracts” within Wis. Stat. § 895.055.
2. If the checks were void gaming contracts under § 895.055, whether the State could nonetheless prosecute Gonnelly under Wis. Stat. § 943.24 for issuing worthless checks.
3. Whether Wisconsin’s legalization and regulation of certain forms of gambling impliedly repealed or limited § 895.055’s rule voiding gaming contracts.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Wisconsin affirmed the dismissal of the complaint and information.
- The court held the checks were gaming contracts under § 895.055 because, on the stipulated facts, the consideration for the instruments was money provided to be laid or staked on dog-race wagering, and both sides understood the transaction in those terms.
- Because § 895.055 declares such gaming-related promises and instruments void, the checks could not be enforced; the State could not use the worthless-check statute (§ 943.24) to accomplish indirectly what § 895.055 forbids directly.
- The court rejected the State’s arguments that (a) the gaming contract began only when wagers were later placed, and (b) the checks’ status as negotiable instruments prevented application of § 895.055.
- The court also rejected implied repeal, finding no clear legislative statement that legalization of certain gambling displaced § 895.055.
- The court was not persuaded by the State’s unfairness or “windfall” theory; the legislature’s choice to render gaming contracts void controlled the outcome.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory interpretation and the application of statutes to undisputed, stipulated facts present questions of law.
- Wis. Stat. § 895.055 is written broadly: it voids “promises, agreements, notes, bills, bonds, or other contracts” when any part of the consideration involves money or value won, lost, laid, staked, or bet on a game.
- A check may fall within § 895.055 when the check-cashing transaction is structured and understood by both parties as supplying stake money for gambling, even if the wager is placed moments later as a separate step.
- When the legislature declares a category of instruments void, courts will not permit enforcement through alternative legal mechanisms, including criminal prosecution that depends on treating the instrument as a valid obligation.
- The law of negotiable instruments does not override an explicit statutory rule that renders gambling-related instruments void.
- Repeal by implication is disfavored; legalization or regulation of some gambling activities does not nullify § 895.055 absent clear legislative action.

## Conclusion

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that Gonnelly’s checks cashed at GLKC were void gaming contracts under Wis. Stat. § 895.055 because both parties understood the checks were exchanged to obtain stake money for dog-race wagering, and it affirmed dismissal of the worthless-check charges because the State could not enforce a void gambling-related obligation through prosecution under Wis. Stat. § 943.24.


Wisconsin v. Gonnelly, 496 N.W.2d 671 (1992)