North Dakota coin-machine and deception defense guide
Making or Uttering Slugs in North Dakota
North Dakota’s “making or uttering slugs” law uses an old-fashioned title, but it applies a precise current test. N.D.C.C. § 12.1-24-05 addresses an object capable of operating a coin machine as an improper but effective substitute for the genuine coin, bill, or token the machine was designed to accept. The State must prove that the accused made or “uttered” that object with intent to deprive the supplier of property or service, or knew that the conduct facilitated another person’s deprivation. It is not enough to show a strange object, a machine malfunction, possession near a vending device, or receipt of a low-cost item. The object, machine, act, intent or knowledge, supplier, property or service, and statutory substitution value each require proof. The grading line is also exact: slugs with a value exceeding $50 make the offense a class A misdemeanor; otherwise it is a class B misdemeanor.
You will work directly with me.
If you hire me, I identify the precise act the State calls making or uttering, inspect and test the object and machine evidence, calculate statutory value rather than accepting a loss estimate, and compare the count with theft, forgery, computer, or payment-device allegations. A short misdemeanor complaint can still contain technical and intent issues that deserve a careful review.
The elements work as a chain
A failure at any link matters. The case should not jump from “the machine dispensed something” to guilt.
| Element | What the statute requires | Proof questions |
|---|---|---|
| Make or utter | The accused made the object or performed an act within the chapter’s broad uttering definition. | Who created, transferred, sold, presented, transmitted, or used it? Is mere possession being mislabeled as uttering? |
| Slug | A metal, paper, or other object capable, through size, shape, or another quality, of improper but effective substitution. | What physical quality let it work? Was it actually capable, or did a broken or modified machine accept an object it was not designed to process? |
| Coin machine | A qualifying mechanical or electronic device designed for coin, bill, or purpose-made token and automatic delivery or access. | What was the device designed to receive? Did it automatically provide property or service in return? |
| Supplier and deprivation | The intended deprivation concerned the supplier of property or service sold or offered through the machine. | Who supplied the benefit? What property or service was offered, at what price, and what deprivation was intended? |
| Culpability | Intent to deprive, or knowledge that the act facilitated another person’s deprivation. | What proves purpose or knowledge at the time of making or uttering? Are mistake, test, authorization, demonstration, refund, or machine-error explanations supported? |
| Value | The value of genuine coins, bills, or tokens for which the slugs could substitute. | How many objects qualify, what denomination could each replace, and does the total exceed—not merely equal—$50? |
The two culpability theories are alternatives. A person may allegedly intend personal deprivation of the supplier, or may allegedly know that making, selling, transmitting, presenting, or otherwise giving currency to the object facilitates another person’s deprivation. The second theory is not strict liability for sharing an object. It requires knowledge of the facilitating role, and the underlying conduct still must concern a statutory slug and coin machine.
A “slug” is defined by effective physical substitution
The object can be metal, paper, or another material. What matters is whether its size, shape, or some other quality makes it capable of being inserted, deposited, or otherwise used in the machine as an improper but effective substitute for a genuine coin, bill, or token. Appearance alone is not the test. An object can look nothing like money yet fit a mechanical validator. Another can resemble a bill but fail every functional test and therefore require a different theory.
“Capable” invites careful examination. The statute does not expressly require that a particular attempt successfully produce property or service, but it requires an object capable of effective substitution. Prosecutors may use a successful transaction, machine audit, video, exemplar testing, dimensions, weight, electromagnetic properties, material, or expert testimony. The defense should ask whether the tested machine was the same one, in the same condition and configuration, whether the test replicated the charged date, whether the object was altered after seizure, and whether the machine accepted it because of a defect rather than a substitute quality.
The machine must fit both parts of the definition
A “coin machine” includes a coin box, turnstile, vending machine, or other mechanical or electronic device or receptacle, but the broad examples do not erase two design requirements. First, it must be designed to receive a coin or bill of a particular denomination or a token made for the purpose. Second, in return for insertion or deposit, it must automatically offer, provide, assist in providing, or permit acquisition of property or a public or private service.
Traditional examples can include vending machines, coin laundries, parking meters, arcade machines, fare turnstiles, pay-operated equipment, token dispensers, or access devices—if their actual design and exchange fit the definition. A cash drawer operated manually by a person is not necessarily a coin machine. A contactless terminal designed only for account credentials may not be one merely because it is electronic. Hybrid machines should be evaluated by the payment pathway allegedly used.
“Utter” is much broader than inserting the object
Section 12.1-24-04 defines “utter” for chapter 12.1-24 as issuing, authenticating, transferring, publishing, selling, transmitting, presenting, using, or otherwise giving currency. Thus, the State may allege distribution or presentation even if the accused did not personally obtain the property. But the verb needs a factual act. Possession by itself is not listed in § 12.1-24-05, unlike other forgery provisions that expressly criminalize possession. Evidence that an object was found in a pocket, drawer, vehicle, or shared space must be connected to making or a particular uttering act and the required culpability.
Does the object qualify?
Test effective substitution, physical characteristics, condition, provenance, and the actual machine configuration.
Is it a statutory coin machine?
Identify what payment it was designed to receive and what property or service it automatically provided.
What act is attributed?
Separate making, transfer, sale, presentation, transmission, use, and mere possession.
What proves intent or knowledge?
Use complete communications, transaction records, tests, authorization, purpose, and conduct at the charged time.
Value means what the objects can replace
The statute supplies its own value measure: the value of the coins, bills, or tokens for which the slugs are capable of being substituted. That is not necessarily the cost to manufacture the objects, the retail price of the items actually dispensed, the machine owner’s total claimed loss, or a value printed on the object. If ten objects each effectively substitute for a $5 token, the statutory value is $50; because class A requires value that exceeds $50, exactly $50 falls in the class B range under the present text.
| Current grade | Statutory slug value | Maximum | Questions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Class B misdemeanor | $50 or less | 30 days, $1,500 fine, or both | Do all counted objects qualify? What denomination or token can each actually replace? Is aggregation supported? |
| Class A misdemeanor | More than $50 | 360 days, $3,000 fine, or both | Does the evidence cross the strict threshold? Are objects duplicated, untested, incompatible, or attributed to different people or events? |
Section 12.1-24-05 states no mandatory minimum. The maximum is not a predicted sentence. Criminal history, number of events, actual loss, restitution, acceptance of responsibility, authorization, motive, other counts, and sentencing factors may matter. Restitution is a separate calculation tied to proved pecuniary damage and causation; it should not be substituted for statutory slug value when grading the count.
When a complaint aggregates many objects, the defense should ask what makes them part of one offense and whether each was capable of the same substitution. Aggregation, unit-of-prosecution, unanimity, multiplicity, and sentence-merger issues depend on dates, acts, victims, objects, and charging language. The statute’s plural “slugs” in the grading provision does not by itself answer every count-structure question.
Do not force every workaround into a 1970s-era label
The definition is broad enough to include an “other object” and an electronic coin machine, but it remains tethered to physical substitution for a genuine coin, bill, or purpose-made token. A counterfeit transit token, washer, altered paper, foreign coin, printed object, or shaped insert may fit if it functions as the improper effective substitute. A QR code, stolen card number, cloned credential, software exploit, replayed wireless signal, coupon code, or account manipulation may implicate theft, computer crime, unauthorized-access, forgery, or other law, but it is not automatically a slug.
The analysis should identify what the machine’s validator was designed to accept and what alleged input defeated it. If a physical object emulates a purpose-made token, the State may have a stronger textual argument. If the transaction uses an account credential and no coin, bill, or purpose-made token substitute, the slug definition may not fit. Technical testimony should describe the system rather than rely on the word “token,” which can mean a physical object, a software credential, or an authentication string in different contexts.
Overlap with theft does not excuse duplicative charging errors. The North Dakota criminal-code hornbook, a secondary historical source, observed conceptual overlap with theft by deception or attempt. Current charging still requires an elements, conduct, and unit-of-prosecution analysis for every count. The hornbook is not binding law and cannot replace current statutes or appellate decisions.
How I analyze a slug investigation
1. Define the State’s verb
“Made or uttered” is not one undifferentiated act. I ask whether the State alleges fabrication, alteration, sale, transfer, transmission, presentation, insertion, use, or another act of giving currency. Then I identify the evidence connecting that act to the accused: video, fingerprints, tools, design files, communications, witnesses, account records, admissions, or possession. A person who possesses an object after another used it may have a different case from the person who designed or presented it.
2. Preserve the object and machine
Functionality can change with wear, cleaning, maintenance, firmware, calibration, damage, or seizure handling. I seek preservation of the original objects and relevant machine, not only photographs. Measurements, materials, acceptance tests, reject rates, validator tolerances, and alternative objects should be documented through reproducible methods. A demonstration on a different model or newly repaired validator may not prove capability at the charged time.
3. Reconcile machine records with claimed loss
Inventory shortage, service use, transaction count, cash collection, error codes, and surveillance should be aligned on one timeline. A shortage may result from stocking error, theft unrelated to a slug, refunds, jams, mechanical failure, employee access, or record mismatch. A successful dispense can corroborate capability and deprivation, but the State still must identify the object and person and prove culpability.
4. Analyze intent and facilitation separately
Intent to deprive may be inferred from concealment, repeated use, testing, instructions, resale, statements, avoidance of payment, or benefits received. Knowledge of facilitating another may be inferred from design requests, warnings, marketing, instructions, repeated supply, or discussions of bypassing the validator. Those inferences must be tied to complete records. Making an object for art, repair, authorized security testing, machine calibration, demonstration, or an incompatible purpose may contradict culpability when supported by objective evidence.
5. Test statements and digital attribution
Searches may reach phones, printers, cutting tools, computers, online sales, payment platforms, or cloud accounts. I examine warrant scope, consent, account identity, shared access, metadata, time zones, deleted or synchronized files, and chain of custody. Interviews require attention to custody, Miranda, voluntariness, promises, recording completeness, technical misunderstanding, and whether officers supplied details adopted by the suspect.
6. Challenge unsupported expert conclusions
A machine technician may explain validator design; a forensic examiner may attribute files; a materials expert may compare objects. The witness’s qualifications, method, test conditions, error rate, documentation, and limits matter. Saying an object “could work” without testing or engineering support may not establish the statutory capability; a successful test without comparable conditions may not prove the charged object worked at the relevant time.
7. Apply discovery and authentication rules
Rule 16 governs specified disclosures, reports, tangible objects, examinations, and continuing duties. Rule 901 requires enough evidence to support a finding that an exhibit is what its proponent claims. Authentication of a video, log, object, or design file does not automatically establish authorship, intent, completeness, or accuracy. Those remain issues for objection, cross-examination, expert review, and the factfinder.
Every definitional link can be contested
Was the object an improper but effective substitute?
An object that jams, damages, or randomly triggers a defective machine is not necessarily a substitute for the designated payment. Capability should be demonstrated reliably. The object’s condition, machine tolerance, validator defect, and intervening modifications matter. If no object was recovered, the State may rely on video or machine evidence, but the limits of that proof should be explicit.
Did the accused make or utter it?
Proximity and possession may support an inference but are not the prohibited verbs by themselves. Shared vehicles, workplaces, tool areas, accounts, and residences complicate attribution. The defense should isolate who handled the object, who accessed the machine, who controlled design or fabrication equipment, and whether another person had motive and opportunity.
Was there intent to deprive or knowing facilitation?
An authorized service technician, owner testing equipment, researcher, manufacturer, or person mistakenly using a similar token may lack the required culpability. Authorization must be real and within scope, and mistake must fit the evidence. Conversely, lack of actual loss does not necessarily defeat an offense if the prohibited act and intent are otherwise proved, so the defense must address the statute rather than focus only on whether merchandise was received.
Does the value cross $50?
The statutory calculation looks to genuine payment substitutes. Objects that do not qualify should be removed. Denominations should be proved. Exactly $50 is not “exceeding” $50. If acts or objects involve different dates or actors, aggregation should be legally and factually justified rather than assumed.
Is a different charge being confused with this one?
Forgery, facilitation of counterfeiting, deceptive writings, theft, criminal mischief, computer fraud, trespass, or payment-card conduct may be investigated alongside a slug count. Similar conduct does not make the elements identical. The defense should test notice, lesser-included offenses, multiplicity, double jeopardy, restitution, and whether one factual act is being repackaged into unsupported counts.
What to preserve immediately
- The complaint, probable-cause statement, bond order, hearing notices, warrants, inventories, and property receipts.
- Every alleged object in its original condition and packaging; photographs and measurements from seizure.
- Machine make/model, validator, configuration, firmware, manuals, service records, transaction logs, collection records, and inventory data.
- Surveillance footage, access logs, receipts, refunds, work orders, and contemporaneous witness information.
- Phones, computers, design files, print or cutting records, sales listings, messages, and cloud data without alteration.
- Authorization, employment, repair, research, testing, purchase, and ownership records that explain possession or use.
Do not destroy, alter, test, insert, sell, transfer, or recreate an alleged object after learning of an investigation. Preserve the original condition and obtain advice before consenting to additional searches or demonstrations.
Frequently asked questions
What is a slug under North Dakota law?
It is a metal, paper, or other object whose size, shape, or another quality makes it capable of insertion, deposit, or other use in a coin machine as an improper but effective substitute for a genuine coin, bill, or purpose-made token.
Does the object have to look like money?
No. Functional capability, not visual similarity alone, controls the definition. But the State still must prove that the object could operate the qualifying machine as an effective improper substitute.
What does “utter” mean?
The chapter defines it broadly: issue, authenticate, transfer, publish, sell, transmit, present, use, or otherwise give currency. Mere possession is not expressly one of the verbs in § 12.1-24-05, so the State should identify a making or uttering act.
Does a hacked app or stolen card number count as a slug?
Not automatically. The slug definition concerns an object functioning as a substitute for a coin, bill, or purpose-made token in a qualifying machine. Digital credential or access conduct may fall under other statutes. The system and alleged input must be analyzed precisely.
How is value calculated?
Value is the value of the genuine coins, bills, or tokens for which the slugs are capable of being substituted. It is not automatically the manufacturing cost, merchandise price, or total business loss.
What if the total is exactly $50?
The current statute makes the offense class A only when the slugs exceed $50 in value. Exactly $50 therefore falls within the otherwise-applicable class B misdemeanor grading, assuming the objects and conduct satisfy all other elements.
What are the maximum penalties?
Class B misdemeanor exposure is up to 30 days and a $1,500 fine. Class A misdemeanor exposure is up to 360 days and a $3,000 fine. Section 12.1-24-05 states no mandatory minimum. Restitution and collateral consequences require separate analysis.
Are there published North Dakota appellate cases on this section?
No published North Dakota appellate opinion directly interpreting § 12.1-24-05 was located in the source review completed October 16, 2026. That makes the statutory text, general culpability law, evidence rules, offense-date law, and any later authority especially important; research should be refreshed for a live case.
A lawyer’s file review of Making or Uttering Slugs in North Dakota
Most bad early advice comes from answering the charge label instead of reading the charging clause. I begin with the operative count and work outward: definitions, exceptions, enhancement facts, evidence, procedure, and only then possible outcomes.
Read the count as a set of propositions the State must prove
For Making or Uttering Slugs in North Dakota, the governing text begins with N.D.C.C. §§ 12.1-24-04, 12.1-24-05, and 12.1-32-01. That citation matters because a familiar charge name can contain several statutory routes, definitions, and sentencing rules. I read the exact count, the alleged date, and every incorporated definition before deciding which facts are material and which allegations are simply part of the narrative.
Next, I connect each material fact to evidence the prosecution can actually present. The source might be a witness, a recording, a certified record, laboratory work, device data, or an admissible inference—but it should be identifiable and testable. That approach shows whether the real dispute concerns what happened, how evidence was obtained, whether it is admissible, or whether it proves the required element at all.
The evidence I would ask for first
For Making or Uttering Slugs in North Dakota, I would not begin with a canned list of defenses. I would begin with the source file: ownership and authorization records, contracts, receipts, valuation material, surveillance video, access logs, account and device records, messages, witness interviews, inventory and loss calculations, restitution support, and the evidence offered to prove identity, intent, entry, possession, value, force, or lack of consent. A police summary can identify what an officer or witness says happened, but it cannot substitute for the recording, photograph, data, or document being summarized. The same is true of a complaint. It identifies the prosecution’s theory at the start of the case; it does not prove the theory.
I put those materials on one chronology. That lets me see what was known at each decision point, which account was contemporaneous, what appeared only after people spoke with one another, and where the record is silent. It also keeps an admissibility question separate from a factual one. A fact can be disputed even if the evidence was lawfully obtained. Evidence can also be accurate yet inadmissible for a particular purpose. Those are different arguments and should not be blurred together.
Read the charging document against the offense date
The alleged date matters because statutes, penalty thresholds, definitions, sentencing rules, and published decisions change. I save the version in force on that date and read the session-law history when the current online text is different. I also check whether a later amendment was merely clarifying or made a substantive change; that is a legal question, not an assumption. The same discipline applies to prior convictions and administrative events. A prior must fit the definition the charged statute actually uses, fall within any stated lookback period, and be proved by a reliable record.
I then compare the formal count with the probable-cause narrative and the discovery. If the prosecution’s theory shifts, I want the amended pleading and enough detail to prepare. If several factual alternatives are alleged, I identify whether they are separate elements, alternative means, enhancement facts, or merely evidentiary details. That distinction affects notice, motions, jury instructions, unanimity arguments, and how a verdict form should be read.
Separate an evidentiary weakness from a suppression issue
Not every troubling fact produces a motion to suppress. Suppression ordinarily requires a constitutional, statutory, or rule-based violation with a remedy that reaches the evidence at issue. A weak identification, an incomplete investigation, or a witness inconsistency may be powerful at trial without making evidence inadmissible. By contrast, a stop, search, interrogation, identification procedure, warrant, or test can raise a legal issue even when the resulting evidence appears incriminating. I analyze both tracks and do not promise dismissal simply because one problem exists.
For a search issue, I reconstruct what officers knew before each intrusion and what authority they claimed. For a statement, I examine custody, questioning, warnings, voluntariness, recording, and the complete context. For scientific or technical evidence, I request the method, underlying data, quality-control material, uncertainty information, and chain of custody. For hearsay or confrontation questions, I identify the actual statement, its purpose, the declarant, and the proposed foundation. Specificity matters; “the evidence is bad” is not a motion.
Prepare negotiation and trial at the same time
A plea decision should be compared with the case the State could present at trial, not with the complaint’s maximum penalty in isolation. I want to know the strongest admissible proof, the weakest required element, the realistic motion practice, the likely instructions, and the consequences of every proposed disposition. That includes custody, probation, treatment, restitution, driving, firearm restrictions, registration, employment or licensing, immigration consultation, family-court effects, and record consequences when they are actually triggered. I avoid telling a client that every collateral consequence applies to every conviction.
Trial preparation gives negotiation its credibility. Witness interviews, exhibit review, motions in limine, expert consultation, demonstrative evidence, jury instructions, and a clean theory of the case force both sides to confront what can be proved. Negotiation can continue while that work is underway. The two tracks are not opposites.
A case-law point worth keeping in its proper place
Appellate decisions matter, but a quotation should not be detached from the issue the court was deciding. In State v. Hartson, 2024 ND 78, ¶ 26, the North Dakota Supreme Court explained that, on a sufficiency challenge, “we do not weigh conflicting evidence, or judge the credibility of witnesses.” That is an appellate-review rule, not a reduction of the State’s burden at trial. At trial, the prosecution still must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt. I cite the case for the point it actually decided and then return to the charged statute, the instructions, and the admissible evidence in the present file.
What I would want you to understand before choosing an outcome
You should be able to identify the exact charge, the facts that set its level, the disputed elements, the evidence that matters most, the motions that have a legal basis, the realistic trial issues, and the concrete effect of each proposed resolution. If an answer depends on a missing report, recording, expert opinion, or certified record, I will say so. An honest answer about what remains unknown is more useful than a confident guess.