Case Title: STATE v WILSON

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1972-11-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 12266 I N THE SUPREME C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1972 STATE OF M O N T A N A , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -VS - JOHNNIE FTILSON, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Sixteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable A. B. Martin, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Joseph P. Hennessey argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana. For Respondent : Hen. ~ o b e r t L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana. J. C. Weingartner, Deputy Attorney General, argued, Helena, Montana. William J. Krutzfeldt, County Attorney, Miles City, Montana. Submitted : October 17, 1972 Decided : wovz 4 1972 Filed : VOV 2 4 1 9 7 1 . M r . Justice Gene B. Daly delivered the Opinion of the Court. This i s an appeal from a judgment entered i n the d i s t r i c t court of the sixteenth judicial d i s t r i c t , Custer County, Hon. A.B. Martin, s i t t i n g without a jury. Defendant was found guilty of possession of gambling implements and sentenced t o imprison- ment i n the Custer County j a i l for a t e r m of three months with the provision that upon payment of a fine i n the amount of $750, the term of imprisonment would be suspended, Defendant i s the owner-operator of the Western Vending Depot i n Miles City, Montana. This business consists of dis- tributing and maintaining coin operated machines, including pool tables and jukeboxes, O n M a y 4, 1971, defendant's warehouse was raided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The raid yielded an extensive supply of gambling devices and apparatus including "slot machines", "uprights", "punchboards", "pull tabs", and miscellaneous components, a l l of which a r e described i n the inventory of a r t i c l e s seized, Following the f i l i n g of charges i n the federal d i s t r i c t court i n Billings, which a r e s t i l l pending, the federal authori- t i e s turned certain items of the gambling equipment over t o the s t a t e authorities. O n November 18, 1971, an Information was f i l e d i n the s t a t e d i s t r i c t court charging defendant with possession of gambling apparatus i n violation of section 94-2404, W.C.M. 1947. On the same day, defendant filed a motion t o quash the Information, Hearing was held on December 21, 1971, and the motion denied. Defendant waived h i s right t o t r i a l by jury and thereafter, on March 23, 1972, defendant, h i s counsel, and the county attorney of Custer County f i l e d a stipulation with the d i s t r i c t court i n which defendant admitted h i s personal possession of the gambling equipment seized a t h i s warehouse. After hearing testimony from defendant, the d i s t r i c t court found h i s guilty, Defendant presents two issues for t h i s Court's review: 1. Whether the court properly denied defendant's motion t o quash and erred i n finding defendant g u i l t y of v i o l a t i n g the provisions of section 94-2404, R.C.M. 1947? 2. Whether defendant can ask t h i s Court f o r a declaratory judgment t o determine i f the "Bonanza Machine" i s a gambling device? Defendant maintains he was i n sole possession of the seized gambling devices but, since he only r e p a i r s and maintains these devices and does not distribute them i n Montana, h i s possession was lawful. Defendant s t a t e s he i s registered with the Attorney General of the United States and t h a t he r e p a i r s and s e l l s gaming machines t o out-of-state gambling operations, chiefly Nevada gaming clubs. H e argues there was no showing the machines were t o be used in v i o l a t i o n of the laws of Montana and s p e c i f i c a l l y section 94-2404, R.C.M, 1947, which s t a t e s : I I Possession of gambling implements prohibited. Any Derson who has i n h i s possession, o r under h i s con- i r o l , o r who permits t b be placed, maintained o r kept i n any room, space, inclosure or building, owned, leased or occupied by him, o r under h i s management or control, any faro box, f a r 0 layout, r o u l e t t e wheel, r o u l e t t e t a b l e , crap table, s l o t machine, o r any machine or apparatus of the kind mentioned i n the preceding section of t h i s a c t , i s punishable by a f i n e of not l e s s than one hundred nor more than one thousand d o l l a r s , and may be imprisoned f o r not l e s s than three months nor more than one year i n the dis- cretion of the court; provided, however, t h a t t h i s section s h a l l not apply t o a public o f f i c e r , o r t o a person coming i n t o possession thereof i n or by reason of the performance of an o f f i c i a l duty, and holding the same t o be disposed of according t o law, I t Defendant argues t h a t possession f o r use c o n s t i t u t e s the v i o l a t i o n of the law, a s d i s t i n c t from possession alone, which defendant had i n openly rebuilding and manufacturing gaming devices f o r shipment t o the s t a t e of Nevada, where they a r e legal. This Court has held on many occasions, under section 94-2404, K.C.M. 1947, t h a t mere possession of gambling equipment i s i l l e g a l . W e note here t h a t section 94-2401, R.C.M, 1947, prohibits using gambling equipment; section 94-2404 prohibits p o s s e s s i ~ n of gambling equipment. In S t a t e v. Joyland Club, 124 Mont, 122, 134, 220 P,2d 988, t h i s Court noted the d i s t i n c t i o n between section 94-2401 and section "In 1907 the l e g i s l a t u r e enacted Chapter 115, Session Laws of 1907, section 1 [now 94-24011 whereof provides t h a t any person who 'runs o r conducts, o r keeps any s l o t machine, o r other similar machine, o r permits same t o be run o r conducted, f o r money, checks, c r e d i t s , o r any representative of value, o r f o r any property o r thing whatever,' i s punishable by f i n e o r imprisonment a s therein prescribed. Section 2 of the 1907 Act [now 94-24041 additionally and separately prescribes punish- ment f o r 'Any person who has i n h i s possession, o r under h i s control, o r who permits t o be placed, maintained o r kept i n any room, space, enclosure o r building, owned, leased or occupied by him, o r under h i s management o r control, any * * * s l o t machine * * *,' Section 7 of the I907 Act provides t h a t any a r t i c l e , machine o r apparatus maintained or kept i n violation of any of the provisions of the Act i s a public nuisance. "It i s apparent from the provisions of section 1 of the 1-907 Act t h a t the l e ~ i s l a t u r e intended t o and t h a t it - made it the running or conducting of any s l o t machine o r similar device a separate offense, a s distinguished from the mere possession o r maintenance of such machines o r similar devices. Section 2 of the Act prescribed punish- ment f o r any person who has p o s s e s s i o n , ~ c o n t r o l or-who maintains the outlawed devices, including s l o t machines. Here the l e g i s l a t u r e d e a l t with two d i s t i n c t offenses: One- the o ~ e r a t i o n of the machines and devices described - ? - i n section I, and the other, t h e possession and maintenance of the machines and devices described i n section 2. See sections 8416 t o 8436, R.C.M, 1907, inclusive." (Emphasis t h e i r s ) , This Court reactr'khe same r e s u l t i n S t a t e v. I s r a e l , 124 Mont. 152, 161, 220 P.2d 1003. I n S t a t e v. Engle, 124 Mont. 175, 177, 220 P.2d 1015, affirming the conviction of i l l e g a l l y possessing gambling equip- ment i n v i o l a t i o n of section 94-2404, we said: "Under t h i s law no one may lawfully possess any s l o t machine i n t h i s s t a t e other than ' a public o f f i c e r , or * ** a person coming i n t o possession thereof i n or by reason of the performance of an o f f i c i a l duty and holding the same t o be disposed of according t o law. I I' In S t a t e v. Crown Cigar Store, 124 Mont, 310, 316, 220 P.2d 1029, t h i s Court held, i n interpreting section 94-2404, R.C.M. 1947, t h a t it is unlawful t o possess any type of gambling equip- ment unless the person i s a public o f f i c e r , See a l s o S t a t e v, Read, 124 Mont, 184, 220 P.2d 1020. Accordingly, we find defendant's i s s u e 1 t o be without merit, Defendant's i s s u e 2 seeks a declaratory judgment t o determine i f the "Bonanza Machine" i s a gambling devtce. W e note the d i s t r i c t court s p e c i f i c a l l y ignored the same question a t the hearing on defendant's motion t o quash; f o r the same 1 l reason, to-wit: Because no charge of possession of Bonanza machines was made,", we decline t o discuss the issue. However, we note i n regard t o defendant's request f o r a c i v i l remedy i n a criminal proceeding, t h a t i n Goff v, State, 141. Mont. 605, 374 P.2d 862, where t h e p e t i t i o n e r sought t o invoke the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, sections 93-8901 through 93-8916, R.C.M. 1947, t h i s Court held t h a t Act could not be applied i n a criminal action. Finding no e r r o r the judgment of the d i s t r i c t court i s affirmed . Associate J u s t i c e 4 Chief J u s t i c e / / ~ s s o c i a k d Justices.