Title: TREASURE STATE GAMES INC v STAT
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 13230
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: July 7, 1976

No. L3230 I N THE SUPREME C O U R T OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1976 TREASURE STATE GAMES, INC. , P l a i n t i f f s and Respondents, THE STATE OF M O N T A N A , LEWIS AND C L A R K C O U N T Y AND T H O M A S F. DOIdLING a s County Attorney of Lewis and Clark County, Defendants and Appellants. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Peter G. Meloy, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record : For Appellants : Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Thomas A. Budewitz, Assistant Attorney General, argued, Helena, Montana For Respondents : Harrison, Loendorf and Poston, Helena, Montana John P. Poston argued, Helena, Montana Submitted: April 22, 1976 Decided : i ' 1976 M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly delivered the Opinion of t h e Court. This i s an appeal from a declaratory judgment entered i n the d i s t r i c t court, Lewis and Clark County, adjudging electronic bingo and keno t o be l e g a l under Montana's Bingo and Raffles Law, and declaring legal p l a i n t i f f ' s specific electronic games c a l l e d Bonus Bingo and Raven Keno. Early i n 1975, p l a i n t i f f corporation requested the county attorney of Lewis and Clark County and the attorney general's o f f i c e t o view c e r t a i n electronic games t o determine i f such games were legal under the Bingo and Raffles Law, T i t l e 62, Chapter 7, R.C.M. 1947. After representatives of both offices viewed the games and the Lewis and Clark County attorney issued h i s l e g a l opinion the games were legal, p l a i n t i f f commenced operating Bonus Bingo and Raven Keno games i n Lewis and Clark County. During the 1975 Montana l e g i s l a t i v e session several amend- ments were introduced i n the Senate t o House B i l l No. 36, a proposed amendment t o section 62-716, R.C.M. 1947, of the Montana Bingo and Raffles Law. Some of these senate amendments were f o r the purpose of banning electronic bingo and keno, thus making p l a i n t i f f ' s Bonus Bingo and Raven Keno games i l l e g a l . House B i l l No. 36 f a i l e d t o pass. O n June 23, 1975, t h e attorney general issued h i s Opinion No. 7, Vol. 36, which held p l a i n t i f f ' s games were i l l e g a l under the Montana Bingo and Raffles Law. P l a i n t i f f then i n i t i a t e d an action i n Lewis and Clark County d i s t r i c t court, seeking a declaratory judgment a s t o the l e g a l i t y of electronic bingo and keno i n general, and Bonus Bingo and Raven Keno games i n particular. The matter was heard by Hon. Peter G . Meloy, s i t t i n g without a jury. Declaratory judgment was entered i n favor of p l a i n t i f f corporation September 12, 1975. The pertinent parts of the Findings of Fact, Opinion and Conclusions of Law of the d i s t r i c t court, dated September 12, 1975, are : "4. That the p l a i n t i f f has a t a l l times acted i n good f a i t h and i n f u l l compliance with a l l licensing requirements of a l l the levels of government. "6. That there a r e many variations of the game of Bingo. Some of the variations do not require a winner each time a game is played .'I In subsections, under the d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s finding of f a c t No. 6 , above, the more commonly known types of bingo games a r e described such a s "blackout" where a l l numbers must be covered and a given number of numbers drawn and i f no bingo, there i s no winner. Diagonal bingo, a more commonly known game where the required number of numbers a r e lined up diagonal, the center number may o r may not, be a free space, and i f no bingo a f t e r the required number of numbers a r e drawn, there i s no winner. A l l numbers must be selected a t random. "9. A l l of the many variations of Bingo are currently played l i v e i n duly licensed establishments i n Montana. The defendants concede t h a t the variation of Bingo a s s e t f o r t h above and which i s played i n the licensed com- mercial Bingo establishments i s lawful under the Montana Yingo and Raffle Law of 1974. 1 0 That the p l a i n t i f f ' s Bonus Bingo Game duplicates i n a l l s a l i e n t respects, one variation of the l i v e game of Bingo which the defendants concede t o be lawful and chat i s currently plaved i n licensed commercial estab- lishments i n Montana under the Bingo and Raffle Law of L974. "11. That the game of Keno f i t s within the d e f i n i t i o n of Bingo and such a game i s allowable i n Montana under the Bingo and Raffle Law of 1974. "12. That the game of Keno i s currently played i n Montana and the defendants concede said game i s lawful under t h e Bingo and Raffle Law of 1974. "13. That t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s Raven Keno game duplica tes , i n a l l s a l i e n t respects, the l i v e game of Keno as i s currently played i n licensed establishments i n Montana. "The Attorney General has held t h a t 'Bingo' i s an auth- orized form of gambling by v i r t u e of Sections 62-715 through 62-726, Revised Codes of Montana, and has held t h a t the game of 'Keno' i s included by the d e f i n i t i o n of Bingo i n Section 62-716, a s an authorized form of gambling. "The essence of the bingo game i s simply defined i n the s t a t u t e and the only requirements are: (1) awarding of prizes (2) selection of numbers o r symbols on a card (3) random selection of numbers t o conform t o the winning selections. "There a r e many v a r i t i e s of the game of 'Bingo' and had the l e g i s l a t u r e intended t o specify and l i m i t the types of 'Bingo' games t h a t could be played it would have done S O . "It i s significant t h a t the 1975 l e g i s l a t u r e refused t o enact an amendment which would have s p e c i f i c a l l y prohibited the electronic machine type of 'Bingo' and 'Keno' games. "It is the opinion of t h i s Court t h a t the so called de- vices i n question here ( i e ) the 'Bonus Bingo Game' and the 'Raven Keno Game' a r e lawful games within the meaning of t h e s t a t u t e . "CONCLUSIONS O F LAW . "1. That the Montana Bingo and Raffles Law does not prohibit Bingo o r Keno t o be played on electronic Bingo and Keno games. "2. That the p l a i n t i f f ' s Bonus Bingo Game and Raven Keno Game a r e lawful under the Montana Bingo and Raffles ~ a w of 1974. "Let judgment be entered accordingly." From t h e f i n a l judgment of the d i s t r i c t court, defendant appeals, and presents three issues f o r the Court's consideration: (1) Whether the judgment of the d i s t r i c t court is e r r o r as a matter of law? (2) Whether the district court erred in admitting House Bill No. 36 and proposed senate amendments thereto? (3) Whether the district court erred in permitting testi- mony regarding senate debate on proposed amendments to House Bill No. 36? Issue ( 1 ) . The state contends "significant" differences exi~t~between plaintiff's electronic games and the live versions so as to render plaintiff's games illegal. It cites as "signifi- cant differences" ( a ) the increased accessibility to customers and economic advantages to operators resulting from use of elec- tronic games, (b) the play of m a i l against machine rather than against other players, ( c ) speed of play, (d) method of selection of numbers, ( e ) equipment used, and ( f ) the number of players who may play the game. While we agree with defendant's contention that differences do indeed exist between the live games of bingo and keno and plaintiff's electronic games, we cannot agree that those differ- ences are legally significant. For such differences to be legally significant they must beanong the legal factors used by the legislature in formulating the definition of legal bingo. The appropriate definitional section of the Montana Bingo and Raffles Law, section 62-716, R.C.M. 1947, states in pertinent part: " ( 1 ) 'Game of chance' means the specific kind - of game of chance commonly known as: " ( a ) 'bingo' in which prizes are awarded on the basis of designated numbers or symbols on a card which conform to numbers or symbols selected at random; * * * I ' ( 2 ) ' Equipment' means : " ( a ) With respect to bingo, the receptacle and numbered objects drawn from it, the master board upon which such objects are placed as drawn, the cards or sheets bearing numbers or other designa- tions to be covered and the objects used to cover them, the boards or signs, however operated, used to announce or display the numbers or designations as they are drawn, public address system, and all other articles essential to the operation, conduct and playing of bingo * * * . I r (Emphasis supplied). With the exception of the method of selection of the winning number or symbol, no mention is made in the definitional section on bingo of any of the distinctions relied on by defendant for declaring lai in tiff's electronic games illegal. In addition to prize restrictions, section 62-716 ( 1 ) ( a ) , merely requires : 1 . The game be the kind commonly known as bingo. 2 . Prizes be awarded on the basis of designated numbers or symbols on a card which conform to numbers or symbols selected at random. In ascertaining whether plaintiff's mechanical-electronic games satisfy these definitional requirements, we first note that defendant concedes in its brief one of the key requirements, that plaintiff's machines do operate so as to select winning numbers or symbols at random. There was an extended examination of the electronic method of number selection in the record, which reveals the selection is random if the winning numbers cannot be predeter- mined by the game owner or operator and there is no method by which the house or game operator has any control over the selection of winning numbers during play or operation of the games. As to the mechanical or electronic nature of plaintiff's bingo and keno games, we see no violation of the statutory defini- tion for section 62-716 ( 2 ) ( a ) , provides for various items of bingo equipment "however operated". In addition, raffle equipment defined in the same statutory section, section 62-716 ( 2 ) ( b ) , includes "* * 2 implements, devices, and machines * * "". (Emphasis added. ) Such language c l e a r l y indicates there i s no l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t demonstrated i n the s t a t u t e t o prohibit the use of mechanical o r electronic operated bingo machines or devices. Finally, none of defendant's other suggested differences are factors t o be considered i n construing the statutory defini- t i o n of bingo. Thus the language of section 62-716, R.C.M. 1947, is unambiguous and c l e a r l y contemplates p l a i n t i f f ' s Bonus Bingo and Raven Keno as being games "commonly known a s bingo". We therefore hold t h a t it i s unnecessary t o apply any rules of s t a t u - tory construction because a s t h i s Court s t a t e d i n Dunphy v. Anaconda Company, 151 Mont. 76, 80, 438 P.2d 660: "* * * The intention of the Legislature must f i r s t be determined from the plain meaning of the words used, and i f interpretation of the s t a t u t e can be so determined, the courts may not go further and apply any other means of interpretation. * * * Where the language of a s t a t u t e i s plain, unabmigu- ous, d i r e c t and c e r t a i n , the s t a t u t e speaks f o r i t s e l f and there i s nothing l e f t f o r the court t o construe. * * * The function of the court is simply t o ascertain and declare what i n terms o r i n substance is contained i n the s t a t u t e and not t o i n s e r t what has been omitted. * * *" While we find the material objected t o i n defendant's Issues (2) and (3) interesting, we do not f e e l compelled t o consider or discuss these matters. The l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t can be determined from the plain meaning of t h e words used which a r e unambiguous, d i r e c t and c e r t a i n and the s t a t u t e speaks f o r i t s e l f . W e find no e r r o r on the part of the t r i a l court. The only substantive evidence produced a t the trial supports the judgment and we affirm. J u s t i c e W e concur: Justices. \ Hon. R.D. McPhillips, District Judge, s i t t i n g for M r . Chief Justice James T. Harrison.