Court Opinion

ID: 9765071
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:50:01.54021+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:04.573813
License: Public Domain

MELTON, Justice,
dissenting.
Gambling is strictly prohibited under the Georgia Constitution, “and this prohibition shall be enforced by penal laws.” Ga. Const, of 1983, Art. I, Sec. II, Par. VIIL In connection with this prohibition, the Legislature has specifically defined the manner in which “a coin operated game or device designed and manufactured for bona fide amusement purposes” may be used without the machine being subject to condemnation by the State as an illegal gambling device. OCGA §§ 16-12-35; 16-12-32. Because the machines at issue here are illegal gambling devices, in that they do not comport with the plain restrictions for “bona fide coin operated amusement games or devices” as defined in OCGA § 16-12-35 (d) (2), I must respectfully dissent from the majority’s erroneous conclusion that the State was not entitled to condemn the machines involved here.
OCGA § 16-12-35 (d) (2) provides:
A player of bona fide coin operated amusement games or devices described in paragraph (1) of this subsection4 may accumulate winnings for the successful play of such bona *73fide coin operated amusement games or devices through tokens, vouchers, points, or tickets. Points may be accrued on the machine or device. A player may carry over points on one play to subsequent plays. A player may redeem accumulated tokens, vouchers, or tickets for noncash merchandise, prizes, toys, gift certificates, or novelties so long as the amount of tokens, vouchers, or tickets received does not exceed $5.00 for a single play.
In construing this statute,
we apply the fundamental rules of statutory construction that require us to construe [the] statute according to its terms, to give words their plain and ordinary meaning, and to avoid a construction that makes some language mere surplusage. At the same time, we must seek to effectuate the intent of the legislature.
(Citations omitted.) Slakman v. Continental Cas. Co., 277 Ga. 189, 191 (587 SE2d 24) (2003). “[U]nder our system of separation of powers this Court does not have the authority to rewrite statutes.” State v. Fielden, 280 Ga. 444, 448 (629 SE2d 252) (2006). It is not our function to rewrite the law, but to “look diligently for the intention of the General Assembly, keeping in view at all times the old law, the evil, and the remedy.” OCGA § 1-3-1 (a).
Here, the plain language of the statute is clear. A player “may accumulate winnings for the successful play of [a] bona fide coin operated amusement game[ ] or device[ ] through tokens, vouchers, points, or tickets,” and accrued points may be “carrfied] over ... on one play to subsequent plays.” OCGA § 16-12-35 (d) (2). However, a player may only “redeem accumulated tokens, vouchers, or tickets for noncash merchandise, prizes, toys, gift certificates, or novelties so long as the amount of tokens, vouchers, or tickets received does not exceed $5.00 for a single play.” (Emphasis supplied.) Id. Thus, no matter how many points or tickets are carried over from a prior game, a player cannot legally redeem his or her total sum of accumulated points for any value “exceed[ing] $5.00 for a single play.” Id.
In the instant case, however, that is exactly what the machines in question allowed players to do. The example given by the special *74concurrence in the Court of Appeals is instructive. It is undisputed that, based on the manner in which these machines were designed, a player could win 100 points in his or her initial game, which would be represented as $100 on the game screen, and when the player pressed the redeem button on the machine, he or she would receive a $5 voucher, leaving a balance of $95/points to be carried over to the next game if the player chose to continue playing.
[Suppose that] the player decided to continue in the second game, and he or she spent another $1 to play. But in this game, the player only won one point/dollar. In other words, the player netted nothing in that game. Nevertheless, the player could hit redeem at this point and receive another $5 voucher. This is so because the game is designed to determine how many accumulated points/dollars remain and if sufficient points remain, award another $5 because the player has now played another game. In other words, the computer took some of the “winnings” from game one and paid them out in game two even though the player won nothing in game two. The machine would then know that the player’s accumulated winnings has been reduced to $90. A player could then play eight games in a row, for example, winning nothing in each game, then press redeem and receive a voucher for eight times $5, or $40.
(Emphasis supplied.) State of Ga. v. Damani, 299 Ga. App. 112, 119-120 (681 SE2d 635) (2009) (Adams, J., concurring specially). In other words, the machines allowed players to redeem their accumulated point totals in an amount that “exceed[s] $5.00 for a single play” in direct violation of the plain language of OCGA § 16-12-35 (d) (2).
In fact, using the same 100 point winner example, at the time that those 100 points were accumulated in a single game, the present cash value of those points would far exceed the permissible $5 payout for a single play, because the player would be guaranteed a payout of $5 every time he or she simply put one more dollar in the machine and pressed the redeem button until his or her $100/points were exhausted. Such a scheme runs contrary to the Legislature’s expressed intent that accumulated point totals cannot be redeemed for an amount in excess of $5 for a single play and would render the constitutional prohibition against gambling meaningless.
Contrary to the majority’s contentions, this analysis has nothing to do with the interpretation of the phrase “successful play” in OCGA § 16-12-35 (d) (2). The relevant inquiry here is not whether subsequent plays after the initial play that led to an accumulation of *75points must be “successful,” but whether one can legally redeem his or her total accumulated points for a value that exceeds $5 for a single play. Id. The Legislature has made clear that this cannot be done, and one need not read the word “successful” into any other line of the statute for this to be the case. Id.
Decided October 4, 2010
Reconsideration denied November 1, 2010.
Wimberly, Lawson, Steckel, Nelson & Schneider, Les A. Schneider, Paul Oliver, McNatt, Greene & Peterson, Hugh B. McNatt, Spix, Krupp & Reece, Mark V. Spix, Manchel, Wiggins & Kaye, Howard J. Manchel, for Ultra Telecom, Inc. et al.
McNatt, Greene & Peterson, Hugh B. McNatt, Begner & Begner, Alan I. Begner, Balch & Bingham, Michael J. Bowers, Christopher S. Anulewicz, Geremy W. Gregory, for Alistar, Inc. et al.
Patrick H. Head, District Attorney, Amelia G. Pray, Christopher W. Timmons, Samuel W. Lengen, Assistant District Attorneys, for the State.
Because the machines in question allow players to redeem accumulated points for a value in excess of $5 for a single play, they are not “bona fide coin operated amusement games or devices,” but rather, illegal gambling devices that are subject to condemnation by the State. Id. See also OCGA § 16-12-32. I therefore respectfully dissent from the majority.
I am authorized to state that Justice Hines and Justice Nahmias join in this dissent.

 OCGA § 16-12-35 (d) (1) provides:
Nothing in this part shall apply to a coin operated game or device designed and manufactured only for bona fide amusement purposes which involves some skill in its operation if it rewards the player exclusively with:
(A) Free replays;
(B) Merchandise limited to noncash merchandise, prizes, toys, gift certificates, or novelties, each of which has a wholesale value of not more than $5.00 received for a single play of the game or device;
(C) Points, tokens, vouchers, tickets, or other evidence of winnings which may he exchanged for rewards set out in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph or subparagraph (B) of this paragraph or a combination of rewards set out in subparagraph (A) and subparagraph (B) of this paragraph; or
(D) Any combination of rewards set out in two or more of subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of this paragraph.
*73This subsection shall not apply, however, to any game or device classified by the United States government as requiring a federal gaming stamp under applicable provisions of the Internal Revenue Code or any item described as a gambling device in subparagraph (B), (C), or (D) of paragraph (2) of Code Section 16-12-20.