Treasure State Games, Inc. v. State

No. L3230

I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

1976

TREASURE STATE GAMES, I N C . ,
P l a i n t i f f s and Respondents,

THE STATE OF MONTANA, LEWIS AND CLARK
C U T AND T O A F. DOIdLING a s County
O NY HMS
A t t o r n e y of Lewis and C l a r k County,

Defendants and A p p e l l a n t s .

Appeal from: D i s t r i c t C o u r t 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 P e t e r G. Meloy, J u d g e p r e s i d i n g .

Counsel o f Record :

For Appellants :

Hon. R o b e r t L. Woodahl, A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , Helena,
Montana
Thomas A. Budewitz, A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l ,
a r g u e d , H e l e n a , Montana

For Respondents :

H a r r i s o n , Loendorf and P o s t o n , Helena, Montana
John P. P o s t o n a r g u e d , Helena, Montana

Submitted: A p r i l 22, 1976

Decided :
i ' 1976
M r . J u s t i c e Gene B . Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court.

T h i s i s an appeal from a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment e n t e r e d i n

t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Lewis and Clark County, adjudging e l e c t r o n i c

bingo and keno t o be l e g a l under Montana's Bingo and R a f f l e s Law,

and d e c l a r i n g l e g a l p l a i n t i f f ' s s p e c i f i c e l e c t r o n i c games c a l l e d

Bonus Bingo and Raven Keno.

E a r l y i n 1975, p l a i n t i f f c o r p o r a t i o n requested t h e county

a t t o r n e y of Lewis and C l a r k County and t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l ' s

o f f i c e t o view c e r t a i n e l e c t r o n i c games t o determine i f such games

were l e g a l under t h e Bingo and R a f f l e s Law, T i t l e 62, Chapter 7,

R.C.M. 1947. A f t e r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of b o t h o f f i c e s viewed t h e

games and t h e Lewis and Clark County a t t o r n e y i s s u e d h i s l e g a l

opinion t h e games were l e g a l , p l a i n t i f f commenced o p e r a t i n g Bonus

Bingo and Raven Keno games i n Lewis and C l a r k County.

During t h e 1975 Montana l e g i s l a t i v e s e s s i o n s e v e r a l amend-

ments were introduced i n t h e Senate t o House B i l l No. 36, a

proposed amendment t o s e c t i o n 62-716, R.C.M. 1947, of t h e Montana

Bingo and R a f f l e s Law. Some of t h e s e s e n a t e amendments were f o r

t h e purpose of banning e l e c t r o n i c bingo and keno, t h u s 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.

On June 23, 1975, t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l i s s u e d h i s Opinion No.

7 , Vol. 3 6 , which h e l d p l a i n t i f f ' s games were i l l e g a l under t h e

Montana Bingo and R a f f l e s Law. P l a i n t i f f then i n i t i a t e d an a c t i o n

i n Lewis and Clark County d i s t r i c t c o u r t , seeking a d e c l a r a t o r y

judgment a s t o t h e l e g a l i t y of e l e c t r o n i c bingo and keno i n g e n e r a l ,

and Bonus Bingo and Raven Keno games i n p a r t i c u l a r . The m a t t e r was
heard by Hon. Peter G . Meloy, s i t t i n g w i t h o u t a j u r y . Declaratory

judgment was e n t e r e d i n f a v o r of p l a i n t i f f c o r p o r a t i o n September 12,

1975. The p e r t i n e n t p a r t s of t h e Findings of F a c t , Opinion and

Conclusions of Law of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , d a t e d September 1 2 , 1975,

are :

"4. That t h e p l a i n t i f f has a t a l l times a c t e d i n
good f a i t h and i n f u l l compliance w i t h a l l l i c e n s i n g
requirements of a l l t h e l e v e l s of government.

"6. That t h e r e a r e many v a r i a t i o n s of t h e game of Bingo.
Some of t h e v a r i a t i o n s do n o t r e q u i r e a winner each time
a game i s played . ' I

I n s u b s e c t i o n s , under t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g of f a c t No. 6 ,

above, t h e more commonly known t y p e s of bingo games a r e d e s c r i b e d

such a s "blackout" where a l l numbers must be covered and a g i v e n

number of numbers drawn and i f no bingo, t h e r e i s no winner.

Diagonal bingo, a more commonly known game where t h e r e q u i r e d number

of numbers a r e l i n e d up d i a g o n a l , t h e c e n t e r number may o r may n o t ,

be a f r e e s p a c e , and i f no bingo a f t e r t h e r e q u i r e d number of

numbers a r e drawn, t h e r e i s no winner. A l l numbers must be s e l e c t e d

a t random.

"9. A l l of t h e many v a r i a t i o n s of Bingo a r e c u r r e n t l y
played l i v e i n d u l y l i c e n s e d e s t a b l i s h m e n t s i n Montana.
The d e f e n d a n t s concede t h a t t h e v a r i a t i o n of Bingo a s
s e t f o r t h above and which i s played i n t h e l i c e n s e d com-
m e r c i a l Bingo e s t a b l i s h m e n t s i s l a w f u l under t h e Montana
Yingo and R a f f l e Law of 1974.

1 0 That t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s Bonus Bingo Game d u p l i c a t e s
i n a l l s a l i e n t r e s p e c t s , one v a r i a t i o n of t h e l i v e game
of Bingo which t h e d e f e n d a n t s concede t o be l a w f u l and
c h a t i s c u r r e n t l y plaved i n l i c e n s e d commercial e s t a b -
lishments i n Montana under t h e Bingo and R a f f l e Law of
L974.

"11. That t h e game of Keno f i t s w i t h i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n
of Bingo and such a game i s a l l o w a b l e i n Montana under
t h e Bingo and R a f f l e Law of 1974.
 "12. That t h e game of Keno i s c u r r e n t l y played i n
Montana and t h e defendants concede s a i d game i s lawful
under t h e Bingo and R a f f l e Law of 1974.

"13. That t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s Raven Keno game d u p l i c a tes ,
i n a l l s a l i e n t r e s p e c t s , t h e l i v e game of Keno a s i s
c u r r e n t l y played i n l i c e n s e d e s t a b l i s h m e n t s i n Montana.

"The Attorney General h a s h e l d t h a t 'Bingo' i s an auth-
o r i z e d form of gambling by v i r t u e o f S e c t i o n s 62-715 through
62-726, Revised Codes of Montana, and h a s h e l d t h a t t h e
game of 'Keno' i s included by t h e d e f i n i t i o n of Bingo i n
S e c t i o n 62-716, a s an a u t h o r i z e d form of gambling.

"The essence of t h e bingo game i s simply d e f i n e d i n t h e
s t a t u t e and t h e only requirements a r e : (1) awarding of
p r i z e s (2) s e l e c t i o n of numbers o r symbols on a c a r d
(3) random s e l e c t i o n of numbers t o conform t o t h e winning
selections.

"There a r e many v a r i t i e s of t h e game of 'Bingo' and had
t h e l e g i s l a t u r e intended t o s p e c i f y and l i m i t t h e types
of 'Bingo' games t h a t could be played i t would have done
SO.

"It i s s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t t h e 1975 l e g i s l a t u r e r e f u s e d t o
e n a c t an amendment which would have s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o h i b i t e d
t h e e l e c t r o n i c machine type of 'Bingo' and 'Keno' games.

"It i s t h e opinion of t h i s Court t h a t t h e s o c a l l e d de-
v i c e s i n q u e s t i o n h e r e ( i e ) t h e 'Bonus Bingo Game' and
t h e 'Raven Keno Game' a r e lawful games w i t h i n t h e meaning
of t h e s t a t u t e .

"CONCLUSIONS O LAW
F

. "1. That t h e Montana Bingo and R a f f l e s Law does
n o t p r o h i b i t Bingo o r Keno t o be played on e l e c t r o n i c
Bingo and Keno games.

"2. That t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s Bonus Bingo Game and
Raven Keno Game a r e l a w f u l under t h e Montana Bingo and
R a f f l e s ~ a w 1974.
of

"Let judgment be e n t e r e d accordingly."

From t h e f i n a l judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , defendant

a p p e a l s , and p r e s e n t s t h r e e i s s u e s f o r t h e C o u r t ' s c o n s i d e r a t i o n :

(1) Whether t h e judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s e r r o r

a s a m a t t e r 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 mail 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 ()a,
2() provides for various items of

bingo equipment "however operated". In addition, raffle equipment

defined in the same statutory section, section 62-716 ( ) b ,
2() includes
"* * 2 implements, d e v i c e s , and machines ** "". (Emphasis added. )

Such language c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e s t h e r e i s no l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t

demonstrated i n t h e s t a t u t e t o p r o h i b i t t h e u s e of mechanical o r

e l e c t r o n i c o p e r a t e d bingo machines o r d e v i c e s .

F i n a l l y , none of d e f e n d a n t ' s o t h e r suggested d i f f e r e n c e s

a r e f a c t o r s t o be c o n s i d e r e d i n c o n s t r u i n g t h e s t a t u t o r y d e f i n i -

t i o n of bingo. Thus t h e language of s e c t i o n 62-716, R.C.M. 1947,

i s 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 a s being games "commonly known a s bingo". We

t h e r e f o r e h o l d t h a t i t i s unnecessary t o apply any r u l e s of s t a t u -

t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n 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 i n t e n t i o n of t h e L e g i s l a t u r e must f i r s t
be determined from t h e p l a i n meaning of t h e words
u s e d , and i f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e s t a t u t e can be
s o determined, t h e c o u r t s may n o t go f u r t h e r and
apply any o t h e r means of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . ***
Where t h e language of a s t a t u t e i s p l a i n , unabmigu-
o u s , d i r e c t and c e r t a i n , t h e s t a t u t e speaks f o r
i t s e l f and t h e r e i s nothing l e f t f o r t h e c o u r t t o
construe. *** The f u n c t i o n of t h e c o u r t i s simply
t o a s c e r t a i n and d e c l a r e what i n terms o r i n s u b s t a n c e
i s c o n t a i n e d i n t h e s t a t u t e and n o t t o i n s e r t what
has been o m i t t e d . * * *"
While we f i n d t h e m a t e r i a l o b j e c t e d t o i n d e f e n d a n t ' s

I s s u e s ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) i n t e r e s t i n g , we do n o t 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 c a n

b e determined from t h e p l a i n 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 t h e s t a t u t e speaks f o r

itself.

W f i n d no e r r o r on t h e p a r t of t h e t r i a l c o u r t .
e The

o n l y s u b s t a n t i v e evidence produced a t t h e t r i a l s u p p o r t s t h e

judgment and we a f f i r m .

Justice
W concur:
e

Justices.

\
Hon. R.D. McPhillips, D i s t r i c t
Judge, s i t t i n g f o r M r . Chief J u s t i c e
James T. Harrison.