Court Opinion

ID: 9630592
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:15:06.213836+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:40.739320
License: Public Domain

GILLETTE, P. J.,
concurring.
We today hold that the manager of a fraternal organization is a misdemeanant, because his club puts on extra paid help on the evenings it runs bingo. I agree, but only because the language of the statute is too clear to permit any other result. At the same time, I cannot help but think that many — perhaps even a majority — of those legislators who voted for this statutory scheme, if confronted with these facts, would say that they would not *854wish to see criminal prosecution here. Such are the vagaries of statutory language, focused through prosecutorial discretion. On the basis of today’s analysis, I assume the result would be the same if it were shown that either (1) the club used more electricity than it would on other nights, because some of the bingo machinery was electrically powered, and the local utility company “profited”; or (2) a waitress serving drinks to players made more in tips on bingo nights than otherwise, because there were more customers. It may be argued that a prosecutor would not waste his time with such cases, but the present case casts some doubt upon reliance on prosecutorial discretion as a moderating influence.
If the present statutory language is allowed to stand — and I do not pretend that I could propose better language — the legislature should understand that it has painted with this very broad brush.