STATE v JOHNSON

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

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 , -vsS M JOHNSON, CHRIS JOHNSON, PAT (DOE) A HAP.IILTON AIJD ROBERT GRAHAM D e f e n d a n t s a n d Respond-ents. CLEF?!<C!:S I?::.-,':sSTWL c,: c",,:~ ,. ,'.I'NT i.,iix 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 . Appeal from: 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: Decided: Filed: p? !; r j 3 , 2 983 Clerk -*- J a n u a r y 1 0 , 1983 March 1 7 , 1 9 8 3 J u s t i c e John Court. Conway H a r r i s o n Mr. delivered 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 p i n i o n of the 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, and MCA, 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, Af t e r District c o n s o l i d a t i o n of Court of the MCA. the charges against defendants, Fifth Judicial i n and District the 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 Johnson i n Twin B r i d g e s , own, and Montana. defendant, Pat Defendants, (Doe) H a m i l t o n 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 , Sam and C h r i s works at, Montana. the 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 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 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." the which Madison machines displayed a sign the bars the police read: Each of "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 A p p a r e n t l y , t h e machines are ments f o r approximately f i v e hours. 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 . costs $.25 play The officers investigation directly 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 and and from won the gambled $29 .50 in $12.50. The prize machine, but the paid was on a s i n g l e course money to Each b e t of did the their not come officers by to an H a m i l t o n and Graham. On May 20, 1982, the State Information against a l l defendants. obtained leave On t h a t d a y , 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 , file Informations 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, using, operating, possessing, keeping, and maintaining MCA, 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 were c o n s o l i d a t e d b y o r d e r of 16, 1982, the the District Court. On J u l y both I n the o r d e r the District Court c o u n t s were d i s m i s s e d both t h e Graham District Court e n t e r e d an o r d e r dismissing counts against a l l defendants. stated case and 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 : 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 1. the Information which charged defendants with a s l o t machine i n v i o l a t i o n of possession of the illegal s e c t i o n 23-5-104, f o r l a c k of p r o b a b l e c a u s e . MCA, 2. Whether Information the states charge an contained offense under in Count section of I1 23-5-412, the MCA. 3. of Whether t h e District Court e r r e d 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 i n d i s m i s s i n g C o u n t I1 could 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, be purchased MCA, in 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 e c t i o n 23-5-101, S l o t m a c h i n e s are d e f i n e d by 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 money. Paper currency redeemable in 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, "use, possess, machine. MCA, operate, 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 keep, or maintain for use" any to slot 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 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 defendants. 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 The D i s t r i c t C o u r t h e l d cause. "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. ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 7 0 Mont. 1 8 9 , 5 5 1 P.2d 1008. S t a t e of Montana 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 25-5-1041 The offense been committed. agree. We 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 MCA, State has claims defendants claim "High it is is C o u n t r y Keno" not. There a Section s l o t machines. slot machine, is no r e c o r d the 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 . determine whether the " H i g h C o u n t r y Keno" game W e cannot 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 Tre -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 Court's District 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 i n which c a r d s / c h a n c e s violation of may be p u r c h a s e d s e c t i o n 23-5-412, i n e x c e s s of game $ .5OrW i n I n - e a s u r e S t a t e -m e s , Tr G a- MCA. P supra, and G a l l a t i n C o u n t y v. , Mont. ruled k e n o and Raffles Act, 6 5 4 P.2d electronic D & R Music and V e n d i n g (1982), 9 9 8 , 39 S t . R e p . 2197, t h i s Court has keno are under the s e c t i o n 25-5-401, legal e t seq., MCA. Bingo and S e c t i o n 25-5-412, states: MCA, "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 p u r c h a s e d i n e x c e s s of $ . 5 0 . " lity of the language in is "cards/chances may be 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 - the charge o f f e n s e u n d e r s e c t i o n 23-5-412, MCA. simply does not state an 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 ." which a r e cumulated 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 favor of the player. f o r t h e purpose of increasing t h e odds in 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 . W e concur: a-Q6!~r/,dp Chief ~ u s t i c e ~ Justices t 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. could be made. We did not determine whether cash payoffs 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 authorized. that the electronic simulation of keno was 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.