STATE v WILSON
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 12266 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O M N A A F OTN 1972 STATE OF MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -VS - J O H N N I E FTILSON, Defendant and A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e S i x t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable A. B. M a r t i n , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For A p p e l l a n t : Joseph P. Hennessey a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana. F o r Respondent : Hen. ~ o b e r t Woodahl, A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , Helena, L. Montana. J. C. W e i n g a r t n e r , Deputy A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , a r g u e d , Helena, Montana. William J. K r u t z f e l d t , County A t t o r n e y , Miles C i t y , Montana. Submitted : Decided : F i l e d : VOV 2 4 1971. October 1 7 , 1972 wovz 4 1972 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. This i s an appeal from a judgment entered i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of t h e s i x t e e n t h j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , Custer County, Hon. A.B. Martin, s i t t i n g without a jury. Defendant was found g u i l t y of possession of gambling implements and sentenced t o imprisonment i n t h e Custer County j a i l f o r a t e r m of t h r e e months with t h e provision t h a t upon payment of a f i n e i n t h e amount of $750, t h e term of imprisonment would be suspended, Defendant i s t h e owner-operator of t h e Western Vending Depot i n Miles C i t y , Montana. This business c o n s i s t s of d i s - t r i b u t i n g and maintaining c o i n operated machines, including pool t a b l e s and jukeboxes, O May 4, 1971, defendant's warehouse was n raided by t h e Federal Bureau of I n v e s t i g a t i o n . The r a i d yielded an extensive supply of gambling devices and apparatus including " s l o t machines", "uprights", "punchboards", " p u l l tabs", and miscellaneous components, a l l of which a r e described i n t h e inventory of a r t i c l e s s e i z e d , Following t h e f i l i n g of charges i n t h e f e d e r a l d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n B i l l i n g s , which a r e s t i l l pending, t h e f e d e r a l a u t h o r i t i e s turned c e r t a i n items of t h e gambling equipment over t o t h e state authorities. On November 18, 1971, an Information was f i l e d i n t h e s t a t e d i s t r i c t c o u r t charging defendant with possession of gambling apparatus i n v i o l a t i o n of s e c t i o n 94-2404, W.C.M. 1947. On t h e same day, defendant f i l e d a motion t o quash t h e Information, Hearing was held on December 21, 1971, and t h e motion denied. Defendant waived h i s r i g h t t o t r i a l by j u r y and t h e r e a f t e r , on March 23, 1972, defendant, h i s counsel, and t h e county a t t o r n e y of Custer County f i l e d a s t i p u l a t i o n with t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n which defendant admitted h i s personal possession of t h e gambling equipment seized a t h i s warehouse. A f t e r hearing testimony from defendant, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t found h i s g u i l t y , Defendant p r e s e n t s two i s s u e s f o r t h i s Court's review: 1. Whether t h e c o u r t p r o p e r l y denied d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o quash and e r r e d i n f i n d i n g defendant g u i l t y of v i o l a t i n g t h e p r o v i s i o n s of s e c t i o n 94-2404, R.C.M. 1947? Whether defendant can a s k t h i s Court f o r a d e c l a r a t o r y 2. judgment t o determine i f t h e "Bonanza Machine" i s a gambling device? Defendant maintains he was i n s o l e possession of t h e s e i z e d gambling d e v i c e s b u t , s i n c e he only r e p a i r s and maintains t h e s e d e v i c e s and does n o t d i s t r i b u t e them i n Montana, h i s p o s s e s s i o n was lawful. Defendant s t a t e s he i s r e g i s t e r e d w i t h t h e Attorney General of the United S t a t e s and t h a t he r e p a i r s and s e l l s gaming machines t o o u t - o f - s t a t e gambling o p e r a t i o n s , c h i e f l y Nevada gaming c l u b s . He argues t h e r e was no showing t h e machines were t o b e used in v i o l a t i o n of t h e laws o f Montana and s p e c i f i c a l l y s e c t i o n 94-2404, R.C.M, 1947, which s t a t e s : II Possession of gambling implements p r o h i b i t e d . Any Derson who h a s i n h i s p o s s e s s i o n , o r under h i s coni r o l , o r who p e r m i t s t b be p l a c e d , maintained o r k e p t i n any room, space, i n c l o s u r e o r b u i l d i n g , owned, l e a s e d o r occupied by him, o r under h i s management o r c o n t r o l , any f a r o box, f a r 0 l a y o u t , r o u l e t t e wheel, r o u l e t t e t a b l e , c r a p t a b l e , s l o t machine, o r any machine o r a p p a r a t u s of t h e kind mentioned i n t h e preceding s e c t i o n of t h i s a c t , i s punishable by a f i n e of n o t l e s s than one hundred n o r more t h a n one thousand d o l l a r s , and may be imprisoned f o r n o t l e s s than t h r e e months n o r more than one y e a r i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e c o u r t ; provided, however, t h a t t h i s s e c t i o n s h a l l n o t apply t o a p u b l i c o f f i c e r , o r t o a person coming i n t o p o s s e s s i o n t h e r e o f i n o r by r e a s o n of t h e performance of an o f f i c i a l d u t y , and h o l d i n g t h e same t o be disposed of according t o law, I t Defendant argues t h a t p o s s e s s i o n f o r use c o n s t i t u t e s t h e v i o l a t i o n of t h e law, a s d i s t i n c t from p o s s e s s i o n a l o n e , which defendant had i n openly r e b u i l d i n g and manufacturing gaming d e v i c e s f o r shipment t o t h e s t a t e of Nevada, where they a r e l e g a l . This Court h a s h e l d on many o c c a s i o n s , under s e c t i o n 94-2404, K.C.M. 1947, t h a t mere p o s s e s s i o n of gambling equipment i s i l l e g a l . W n o t e h e r e t h a t s e c t i o n 94-2401, R.C.M, e 1947, p r o h i b i t s u s i n g gambling equipment; s e c t i o n 94-2404 p r o h i b i t s p o s s e s s i ~ no f gambling equipment. I n S t a t e v. Joyland Club, 124 Mont, 122, 134, 220 P,2d 988, t h i s Court noted t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between s e c t i o n 94-2401 and s e c t i o n "In 1907 t h e l e g i s l a t u r e enacted Chapter 115, Session Laws of 1907, s e c t i o n 1 [now 94-24011 whereof provides t h a t any person who ' r u n s o r conducts, o r keeps any s l o t machine, o r o t h e r s i m i l a r machine, o r p e r m i t s same t o be run o r conducted, f o r money, checks, c r e d i t s , o r any r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of v a l u e , o r f o r any p r o p e r t y o r t h i n g whatever,' i s punishable by f i n e o r imprisonment a s t h e r e i n p r e s c r i b e d . S e c t i o n 2 of t h e 1907 Act [now 94-24041 a d d i t i o n a l l y and s e p a r a t e l y p r e s c r i b e s punishment f o r 'Any person who h a s i n h i s p o s s e s s i o n , o r under h i s c o n t r o l , o r who permits t o be p l a c e d , maintained o r k e p t i n any room, space, e n c l o s u r e o r b u i l d i n g , owned, l e a s e d o r occupied by him, o r under h i s management o r c o n t r o l , any s l o t machine S e c t i o n 7 of t h e I907 Act provides t h a t any a r t i c l e , machine o r a p p a r a t u s maintained o r k e p t i n v i o l a t i o n of any of t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e Act i s a p u b l i c nuisance. *** * * *,' "It i s apparent from t h e p r o v i s i o n s of s e c t i o n 1 of t h e 1-907 Act t h a t t h e l e ~ i s l a t u r eintended t o and t h a t i t made i t t h e running o r conducting of any s l o t machine o r s i m i l a r d e v i c e a s e p a r a t e o f f e n s e , a s d i s t i n g u i s h e d from t h e mere p o s s e s s i o n o r maintenance of such machines o r s i m i l a r devices. S e c t i o n 2 of t h e Act p r e s c r i b e d punishment f o r any person who has p o s s e s s i o n , ~ c o n t r o l or-who maintains t h e outlawed d e v i c e s , i n c l u d i n g s l o t machines. Here t h e l e g i s l a t u r e d e a l t w i t h two d i s t i n c t o f f e n s e s : One- t h e o ~ e r a t i o nof t h e machines and d e v i c e s d e s c r i b e d i n s e c t i o n I , and t h e o t h e r , t h e p o s s e s s i o n and maintenance of t h e machines and d e v i c e s d e s c r i b e d i n s e c t i o n 2. See s e c t i o n s 8416 t o 8436, R.C.M, 1907, i n c l u s i v e . " (Emphasis theirs), - - ? - This Court reactr'khe same r e s u l t i n S t a t e v. I s r a e l , 124 Mont. 152, 161, 220 P.2d 1003. I n S t a t e v. Engle, 124 Mont. 175, 177, 220 P.2d 1015, a f f i r m i n g t h e c o n v i c t i o n of i l l e g a l l y p o s s e s s i n g gambling equipment i n v i o l a t i o n of s e c t i o n 94-2404, we s a i d : "Under t h i s law no one may l a w f u l l y possess any s l o t machine i n t h i s s t a t e o t h e r t h a n ' a p u b l i c o f f i c e r , or a person coming i n t o p o s s e s s i o n t h e r e o f i n o r by reason of t h e performance of an o f f i c i a l duty and h o l d i n g t h e same t o be disposed of according t o law. I I' * ** I n S t a t e v. Crown Cigar S t o r e , 124 Mont, 310, 316, 220 P.2d 1029, t h i s Court h e l d , i n i n t e r p r e t i n g s e c t i o n 94-2404, R.C.M. 1947, t h a t i t i s unlawful t o possess any t y p e of gambling equipment u n l e s s t h e person i s a p u b l i c o f f i c e r , See a l s o S t a t e v , Read, 124 Mont, 184, 220 P.2d 1020. Accordingly, we f i n d d e f e n d a n t ' s i s s u e 1 t o be w i t h o u t merit, Defendant's i s s u e 2 seeks a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment t o determine i f t h e "Bonanza Machine" i s a gambling devtce. W e n o t e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t s p e c i f i c a l l y ignored t h e same q u e s t i o n a t t h e h e a r i n g on d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o quash; f o r t h e same reason, to-wit: 1l Because no charge of possession of Bonanza machines was made,", we d e c l i n e t o d i s c u s s t h e i s s u e . However, we n o t e i n r e g a r d t o d e f e n d a n t ' s r e q u e s t f o r a c i v i l remedy i n a c r i m i n a l proceeding, t h a t i n Goff v, S t a t e , 141. Mont. 605, 374 P.2d 862, where t h e p e t i t i o n e r sought t o invoke t h e Uniform D e c l a r a t o r y Judgments Act, s e c t i o n s 93-8901 through 93-8916, R.C.M. 1947, t h i s Court h e l d t h a t Act could n o t be a p p l i e d i n a c r i m i n a l a c t i o n . Finding no e r r o r t h e judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s affirmed . Associate J u s t i c e / 4 Chief J u s t i c e / ~ s s o c i a k d ustices. J
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
