In Case No. A07A1015, the State of Georgia appeals from the final order and judgment of the Superior Court of Cobb County in this suit brought by the District Attorney to condemn eleven game machines. In its detailed order, the superior court denied the State’s petition to condemn seven of the game machines1 but granted the petition as to the remaining four machines.2 The State appeals, contending the superior court erred in refusing to condemn the seven machines seized by the State pursuant to OCGA § § 16-12-20, 16-12-30, 16-12-32, and 16-12-35. In Case Nos. A07A1016, A07A1017, and A07A1018, the owners of the four condemned game machines cross-appeal, contending their machines did not violate the law. We consolidate these cases for purposes of this opinion, and, as more fully explained below, affirm in part and reverse in part. The relevant procedural facts are as follows. The State of Georgia, by and through the District Attorney of Cobb County, filed twelve complaints for condemnation in the Cobb County Superior Court. In each complaint, the State sought to condemn one or more game machines and the U. S. currency used or intended to be used in the seized machines. Upon the joint motion of the parties, the superior court consolidated the cases. By agreement of the parties, the State amended one of its complaints to add additional machines to the consolidated condemnation case. To simplify the action, the parties divided the machines into classes and agreed to allow one machine from each class to serve as a representative of that class at trial. The superior court conducted a bench trial and the parties presented lay and expert witness testimony about how the machines were manufactured and programmed, how they were played, and how they dispensed rewards. Following the trial, the court asked the parties to present proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. After considering the parties’ proposals, the court issued a 76-page final order detailing the evidence adduced with respect to each machine, the position of the parties with respect to each machine, the court’s analysis of the applicable law, and the court’s findings of facts and conclusions of law with respect to each machine. The court concluded that four of the eleven machines were gambling devices subject to condemnation pursuant to OCGA § § 16-12-20 and 16-12-35, but that seven of the machines were not. It is from this order that the State appeals and the respondents cross-appeal.
A07A1015
