State v. Johnson ( 1983 )

NO. 82-272
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A
F F O T N
1983
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?!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