DocketNumber: 82-272
Filed Date: 3/16/1983
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 3/3/2016
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 51 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 54 P.2d 99 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