Court Opinion

ID: 9846410
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:40:24.351658+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:29.339244
License: Public Domain

Finney, Justice:
I respectfully dissent. In my opinion, the majority misconstrues S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2710 (Supp. 1993) and Powell v. Red Carpet Lounge, 280 S.C. 142, 311 S.E. (2d) 719 (1984). I would affirm the circuit court’s conclusion that possession of “Lucky 8 Line” machines is not unlawful.
Under § 12-21-2710, it is unlawful to possess “[a]ny vending or slot machine, punch board, pull board, or other device pertaining to games of chance. . . .” (Emphasis added.) The statute then goes on to exempt from its general prohibitions four different types of machines including “video games with free play features.” Id. Since § 12-21-2710 is a penal statute, it must be strictly construed against the State and in favor of respondents. State v. Blackmon, 304 S.C. 270, 403 S.E. (2d) 600 (1991).
I agree with the majority that “Lucky 8 Line” is a slot machine within the meaning of § 12-21-2710, not because it re*401sembles a Las Vegas-style slot machine nor because it requires no skill to play, but because it is “a machine whose operation is begun by dropping a coin into a slot.1n Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary 1094 (5th ed. 1974); State v. Blackmon, supra (words in a statute are given their plain and ordinary meaning); Ingram v. Bearden, 212 S.C. 399, 47 S.E. (2d) 833 (1948) (slot machine is one operated by deposit of a coin or thing of value) (Baker and Taylor, JJ, dissenting); Alexander v. Martin, 192 S.C. 176, 6 S.E. (2d) 20 (1939) (pinball machine is a slot machine); cf., State v. DeAngelis, 257 S.C. 44,183 S.E. (2d) 906 (1971) (whether a “one-armed bandit is a slot machine is a question of fact for the jury”).
As the majority recognizes, it is well-settled that the second phrase of the statute’s first paragraph creates exemptions for machines otherwise prohibited by that paragraph’s first phrase. § 12-21-2710. See e.g., Alexander Amusement Co. v. State, 246 S.C. 530, 144 S.E. (2d) 718 (1965); Alexander v. Martin, supra. Despite this acknowledgement, the majority holds it would be untenable to believe a “Lucky 8 Line” slot machine is exempt as a “video game with free play feature,” relying on the doctrine of ejusdem generis. I disagree. First, as applied by the majority, this doctrine would eliminate all the exemptions in § 12-21-2710. Second, since the general term in § 12-21-2710 is “slot machine,” and the more specific term “video game with free play feature” follows this general term, ejusdem generis is simply inapplicable here. “Lucky 8 Line” is an exempt video slot machine under § 12-21-2710.
Even if the machine were not exempt under § 12-21-2710, its possession would not be unlawful under our decision in Powell v. Red Carpet Lounge, supra. The State concedes “Lucky 8 Line” is a coin-operated nonpayout machine with a free-play feature under S.C. Code Ann. § 16-19-60 (Supp. 1993). This statute exempts these machines from the criminal provisions of S.C. Code Ann. §§ 16-19-40 and -50 (1985). In Powell, we held certain machines legal because they met the statutory exception of § 16-19-60 as “coin-operated nonpayout machines with free play features” even though they were not exempt under an earlier version of § 12-21-2710 which exempted only “coin-operated nonpayout pin tables with free play feature.” In construing the statute in pari materia, the Powell Court did not equate two very different statutory pro*402visions, but rather held a machine exempt under either § 16-19-60 or § 12-21-2710 could not be prohibited under the other section. Under Powell, “Lucky 8 Line” machines are not subject to seizure and destruction.
Possession of the machines is lawful under § 12-21-2710. Even if this were not so, possession of “Lucky 8 Line” machines is legal under § 16-19-60. Powell, supra. I would affirm.
Toal, J., concurs.