Government of Guam v 221 Slot Machines [2002] GUSC 22; 2002 Guam 22 (26 November 2002)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

GOVERNMENT OF GUAM,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

221 SLOT MACHINES and DAE SIN PACHINKO, INC.
and THE MANGILAO IMPROVEMENT ORGANIZATION
Defendants-Appellants.

Supreme Court Case No.: CVA02-006
Superior Court Case No.: SP0140-01

OPINION

Filed: November 26, 2002

Cite as: 2002 Guam 22

Argued and submitted on September 4, 2002
Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellee: J. Patrick Mason Deputy Attorney General Office of the Attorney General Suite 2-200E, Judicial Ctr. Bldg. 120 W O=Brien Dr. Hagåtña, Guam 96913

Appearing for Defendants-Appellants: David J. Highsmith, Esq. Law Office of David J. Highsmith, P.C. Suite 209, Union Bank of California Bldg. Hagåtña, Guam 96913

BEFORE: PETER C. SIGUENZA, JR. Chief Justice; F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Associate Justice; and FRANCES M. TYDINGCO-GATEWOOD, Associate Justice.

TYDINGCO-GATEWOOD, J.:

[1] Defendant-Appellant Dae Sin Pachinko, Inc. (ADae Sin@) appeals from the Superior Court decision ordering Plaintiff-Appellee Government of Guam (AGovernment@) to destroy 221 slot machines that the Guam Police Department seized from Dae Sin=s gambling concession at the 2001 Liberation Day Carnival. Dae Sin claims that its slot machines were properly licensed pursuant to Title 9 GCA ' 64.62 and as a result were not subject to seizure. The Superior Court held that slot machines are not licensable on Guam for any purpose. We affirm the Superior Court=s decision.

I.

[2] Dae Sin paid $10,000.00 for a concession to operate slot machines at the 2001 Liberation Day Carnival. In early July 2001, the Guam Police Department seized 221 of Dae Sin=s slot machines that were being used at the carnival, alleging that the machines were illegal under Title 9 GCA ' 64.20, which prohibits anyone from importing, causing to import, or manufacturing certain gambling devices, including slot machines. At the forfeiture proceeding, Dae Sin argued that its machines were temporarily licensed for use at the carnival pursuant to a statutory exception. Both parties moved for summary judgment. On February 13, 2002, the Superior Court issued a decision and order in favor of the Government, holding that the statutory exception allowing gambling devices at certain carnivals did not apply to slot machines. The Superior Court declared the machines illegal and ordered the Attorney General to seize and destroy the machines. Currently, the machines are being held by the Department of Public Works.

II.

[3] This court has jurisdiction over an appeal from a final judgment. Title 7 GCA ' 3107 (1994).

III.

[4] Guam law generally prohibits gambling and gambling devices, including slot machines. However, Title 9 GCA ' 64.62 provides an exception to this ban for gambling devices that have been temporarily licensed for use at certain fairs or carnivals. The only issue before this court is whether slot machines may be temporarily licensed so as to qualify for the exception. AIssues of statutory interpretation are questions of law [that are] reviewed de novo.