State v. Johnson

• Court: Montana Supreme Court
• Decided: March 16, 1983
• Docket: 82-272
• Status: Published

Opinion

NO. 82-272

I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A F F O T N

THE STATE O MONTANA, F

P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t ,

-vs-

S M JOHNSON, CHRIS JOHNSON, PAT (DOE) A HAP.IILTON AIJD ROBERT GRAHAM CLEF?!

Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i f t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n a n d f o r t h e County o f Madison, The H o n o r a b l e Mark P. S u l l i v a n , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g .

C o u n s e l o f Record:

For Appellant:

Hon. Mike G r e e l y , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a , Montana Loren T u c k e r , V i r g i n i a C i t y , Montana

For Respondent r

C h e s t e r L. J o n e s , V i r g i n i a C i t y , 14ontana

.-- ----- -- *-

Submitted: J a n u a r y 1 0 , 1983

Decided: March 1 7 , 1 9 8 3

Filed: p? !; r j 3 , 2 983

Clerk Mr. J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n delivered t h e O p i n i o n of the Court.

D e f e n d a n t s were c h a r g e d w i t h t h e o f f e n s e s of m a i n t a i n i n g a

b i n g o / k e n o game i n w h i c h c a r d s / c h a n c e s may be p u r c h a s e d i n e x c e s s

of $.SO in violation of section 23-5-412, MCA, and using, p o s s e s s i n g , o p e r a t i n g , k e e p i n g , and m a i n t a i n i n g a s l o t m a c h i n e i n

v i o l a t i o n o f s e c t i o n 23-5-104, MCA.

Af t e r c o n s o l i d a t i o n of the charges against defendants, the

District Court of the Fifth Judicial District i n and for the

County of Madison, d i s m i s s e d b o t h c o u n t s a g a i n s t a l l d e f e n d a n t s . The S t a t e a p p e a l s . D e f e n d a n t , R o b e r t Graham, is t h e owner of The B l u e Anchor B a r

and Cafe i n Twin B r i d g e s , Montana. Defendants, Sam and C h r i s Johnson own, and defendant, Pat (Doe) H a m i l t o n works at, the L o n g b r a n c h S a l o o n and S u p p e r C l u b i n E n n i s , Montana. On A p r i l

2 2 , 1 9 8 2 , t h e Madison C o u n t y s h e r i f f e n l i s t e d D i l l o n p o l i c e o f f i - c e r s t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e L o n g b r a n c h and The B l u e Anchor a f t e r t h e sheriff received information that keno machines in Madison

C o u n t y were p a y i n g c a s h r e w a r d s . A t each of the bars the police o f f i c e r s found a machine l a b e l e d "High C o u n t r y Keno." Each of the machines displayed a sign which read: "Win $100.00." The o f f i c e r s i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e m a c h i n e s a t t h e t w o e s t a b l i s h -

ments f o r approximately f i v e hours. A p p a r e n t l y , t h e machines are o p e r a t e d b y i n s e r t i n g c o i n s i n t o a s l o t on t h e m a c h i n e . Each b e t

costs $.25 and u p t o e i g h t b e t s c a n be p u r c h a s e d on a s i n g l e

play The officers gambled $29 .50 in the course of their investigation and won $12.50. The prize money did not come directly from the machine, but was paid to the officers by H a m i l t o n and Graham. On May 20, 1982, the State obtained leave to file an

Information against a l l defendants. On t h a t d a y , Informations were f i l e d c h a r g i n g d e f e n d a n t s J o h n s o n and H a m i l t o n , and d e f e n - d a n t , Graham, w i t h Count I ; v i o l a t i o n s o f s e c t i o n 23-5-104, MCA,

using, operating, possessing, keeping, and maintaining a slot m a c h i n e , and C o u n t 11; v i o l a t i o n s o f s e c t i o n 23-5-412, MCA, main-

t a i n i n g a b i n g o / k e n o game i n which c a r d s / c h a n c e s may be p u r c h a s e d i n e x c e s s o f $.SO. On J u l y 1, 1 9 8 2 , t h e Johnson-Hamilton case and t h e Graham case were c o n s o l i d a t e d b y o r d e r of the District Court. On J u l y 16, 1982, the District Court e n t e r e d an o r d e r dismissing both

counts against a l l defendants. I n the o r d e r the District Court stated both c o u n t s were d i s m i s s e d f o r l a c k of probable cause.

The S t a t e a p p e a l s f r o m t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s r u l i n g .

The i s s u e s r a i s e d on a p p e a l a r e as f o l l o w s : 1. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n d i s m i s s i n g Count I o f the Information which charged defendants with the illegal

possession of a s l o t machine i n v i o l a t i o n of s e c t i o n 23-5-104, MCA, f o r l a c k of p r o b a b l e c a u s e . 2. Whether the charge contained in Count I1 of the Information states an offense under section 23-5-412, MCA.

3. Whether t h e District Court e r r e d i n d i s m i s s i n g C o u n t I1

of the I n f o r m a t i o n which charged d e f e n d a n t s w i t h m a i n t a i n i n g a

bingo/keno game in which cards/chances could be purchased in e x c e s s o f $ . 5 0 i n v i o l a t i o n o f s e c t i o n 23-5-412, MCA, f o r l a c k of

probable cause. Count I o f t h e I n f o r m a t i o n charged d e f e n d a n t s w i t h t h e i l l e - g a l p o s s e s s i o n of a s l o t machine. S l o t m a c h i n e s are d e f i n e d by

s e c t i o n 23-5-101, MCA:

" ( 1 ) A s l o t m a c h i n e i s d e f i n e d as a m a c h i n e o p e r a t e d by i n s e r t i n g a c o i n , t o k e n , c h i p , t r a d e c h e c k , o r p a p e r c u r r e n c y t h e r e i n by t h e p l a y e r and f r o m t h e p l a y of which he o b t a i n s o r may o b t a i n money, c h e c k s , c h i p s , t o k e n s , o r Paper currency redeemable in money. Merchandise vending machines where t h e element o f chance does not e n t e r i n t o t h e i r o p e r a t i o n are n o t w i t h i n t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s p a r t . " S e c t i o n 23-5-104, MCA, s t a t e s it s h a l l be a m i s d e m e a n o r to "use, possess, operate, keep, or maintain for use" any slot machine. The a f f i d a v i t s o f p r o b a b l e c a u s e f i l e d w i t h t h e m o t i o n s f o r l e a v e t o f i l e I n f o r m a t i o n by t h e S t a t e s t a t e s i n v e s t i g a t i n g

o f f i c e r s p l a c e d b e t s f r o m o n e t o e i g h t q u a r t e r s p e r game, into m a c h i n e s l a b e l e d "High C o u n t r y Keno ," a t e s t a b l i s h m e n t s owned b y defendants. A t e a c h e s t a b l i s h m e n t t h e o f f i c e r s were a b l e t o p u t

a q u a r t e r ( s ) i n t o t h e m a c h i n e , t h e p l a y o f w h i c h won $ 1 2 . 5 0 p a i d by t h e bartender. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i s m i s s e d C o u n t I o f t h e I n f o r m a t i o n f o r

l a c k of probable cause. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t h e l d "High C o u n t r y Keno" is e s s e n t i a l l y t h e same a s t h e "Raven Keno Game" w h i c h t h i s Court ruled legal i n T r e a s u r e S t a t e G a m e s v. S t a t e of Montana

( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 7 0 Mont. 1 8 9 , 5 5 1 P.2d 1008. S e c t i o n 46-11-2011 MCA,

g r a n t s l e a v e t o f i l e a n I n f o r m a t i o n , " i f it a p p e a r s t h a t t h e r e is

p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o b e l i e v e t h a t an o f f e n s e h a s been committed by

the defendant ." The S t a t e a r g u e s i t need n o t d e m o n s t r a t e a p r i m a f a c i e case i n t h e c h a r g i n g d o c u m e n t s , o n l y show p r o b a b l e c a u s e to believe an offense has been committed. We agree. Section

25-5-1041 MCA, p r o h i b i t s t h e u s e o r o p e r a t i o n of s l o t machines. The State claims "High C o u n t r y Keno" is a slot machine, the defendants claim it is not. There is no r e c o r d to d e t e r m i n e

w h e t h e r t h e m a c h i n e is or i s n o t a s l o t m a c h i n e . However, the S t a t e h a s shown p r o b a b l e c a u s e i n i t s a f f i d a v i t s t h a t a n o f f e n s e h a s b e e n c o m m i t t e d and t h a t is a l l t h a t is n e c e s s a r y . W e cannot

determine whether the " H i g h C o u n t r y Keno" game is e x a c t l y the

same a s t h e "Raven Keno Game" d e c l a r e d l e g a l i n - a s u r e S t a t e Tr- e -

-G a m e s f o r t h e r e are no f i n d i n g s i n t h e r e c o r d from w h i c h a d e t e r -

mination can be made. We hold the District Court's order

d i s m i s s i n g C o u n t I o f t h e I n f o r m a t i o n was i n e r r o r . N e x t , w e w i l l a d d r e s s i s s u e s t w o and t h r e e t o g e t h e r as t h e y both challenge the dismissal of Count I1 of the Information. C o u n t I1 c h a r g e s d e f e n d a n t s w i t h " m a i n t a i n i n g a b i n g o / k e n o game i n which c a r d s / c h a n c e s may be p u r c h a s e d i n e x c e s s of $ .5OrW i n

violation of s e c t i o n 23-5-412, MCA. I n - e a s u r e S t a t e -m e s , Tr P G a-

supra, and G a l l a t i n C o u n t y v. D & R Music and V e n d i n g (1982),

Mont. , 6 5 4 P.2d 9 9 8 , 39 S t . R e p . 2197, t h i s Court has

ruled k e n o and electronic keno are legal under the Bingo and Raffles Act, s e c t i o n 25-5-401, e t seq., MCA. S e c t i o n 25-5-412, MCA, states: "The p r i c e f o r a n i n d i v i d u a l b i n g o c a r d s h a l l n o t e x c e e d 50 c e n t s ." The D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r e d C o u n t I1 d i s m i s s e d f o r t h e r e a s o n t h a t t h e s t a t u t e s t a t e s a n " i n d i v i d u a l " c a r d may n o t e x c e e d $ . 5 0 yet the language in the Information is "cards/chances may be

p u r c h a s e d i n e x c e s s of $ . 5 0 . " The D i s t r i c t C o u r t h e l d t h e p l u r a - lity of the language in the charge simply does not state an o f f e n s e u n d e r s e c t i o n 23-5-412, MCA. The a f f i d a v i t f i l e d w i t h

t h e m o t i o n f o r l e a v e t o f i l e I n f o r m a t i o n s t a t e s a b e t of up to e i g h t q u a r t e r s c a n be made and " t h e more t h e b e t , t h e h i g h e r t h e payoff ." Defendants c l a i m t h e machine t a k e s s e p a r a t e $ .25 b e t s

which a r e cumulated f o r t h e purpose of increasing t h e odds in favor of the player. The S t a t e a r g u e s t h e b e t s a r e n o t s e p a r a t e

b u t a r e a c t u a l l y o n e b e t which e x c e e d s t h e $ .50 l i m i t . A s stated

a b o v e , a n I n f o r m a t i o n need o n l y show " p r o b a b l e c a u s e to b e l i e v e a n o f f e n s e h a s been committed ." Again, t h i s Court h a s no r e c o r d from which w e can d e t e r m i n e t h e l e g a l i t y of t h e b e t s . W e do find

t h a t t h e a f f i d a v i t d o e s show p r o b a b l e c a u s e t h a t a n o f f e n s e h a s b e e n c o m m i t t e d and d i s m i s s a l o f C o u n t I1 o f t h e I n f o r m a t i o n w a s

i n error. R e v e r s e d and remanded t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r f u r t h e r p r o - ceed i n g s . t

W e concur:

a-Q6!~r/,dp Chief ~ u s t i c e ~

Justices I respectfully dissent.

The State here seeks to have the courts declare an electronic simulation of keno to be a slot machine and thus impose the sanctions found in sections 23-5-121 and 23-5-122. The latter two sections authorize seizure and confiscation of slot machines. These sanctions would authorize confiscation of keno machines if in fact they are slot machines being operated in violation of section 23-5-104, MCA. In Treasure State Games v. State of Montana (1976), 170 Mont. 189, 551 P.2d 1008, this Court held that keno machines were electronic simulations of keno or bingo games and as such were legal. We did not determine whether cash payoffs could be made. However, keno is legal under the Bingo and Raffles Act, section 25-5-401, et seq., MCA, wherein cash prizes are not authorized. The issue becomes whether payment of cash prizes removes keno machines from the auspices of the Bingo and Raffles Act and converts an otherwise lawful keno machine to a slot machine. Business people have relied in good faith upon our decision in Treasure State and invested in keno machines believing that the electronic simulation of keno was authorized. Without ever previously ruling that cash payoffs were illegal, we now surprise these good faith investors with a ruling which allows confiscation of their investments. I would affirm the district court ruling that the State cannot prosecute violation of the Bingo and Raffles Act by permitting confiscation of these machines as slot machines. I agree completely with the dissent of Justice Morrison.

' .--. , ---==T=ss r" Justice ,A,'

ice