State v. Ferris
| Citation | 284 A.2d 288 |
| Parties | STATE of Maine v. Ferris P. FERRIS. |
| Decision Date | 08 December 1971 |
| Court | Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US) |
Peter T. Dawson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Augusta, for appellant.
Levine, Brody & Levine by Julius B. Levine, Waterville, for appellee.
Before DUFRESNE, C. J., and WEBBER, WEATHERBEE, POMEROY, WERNICK and ARCHIBALD, JJ.
The State Police obtained a warrant to search the Defendant's residence and garage after several months of surveillance and investigation. The police allegedly had probable cause to believe that Mr. Ferris was engaged in illegal bookmaking and pursuant to the search seized evidence of such alleged activity. While executing the search on the Defendant's premises, a police officer looked through the window of a car, which Defendant had recently parked in the driveway, and observed on the floor slips of paper which appeared to be records of gambling activities. The police subsequently obtained a warrant to search the car and seized the material found therein.
The Defendant was indicted on six counts of violation of 17 M.R.S.A. § 1801 (bookmaking) and one count of violation of 17 M.R.S.A. § 1811 (). The Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment on several grounds, one ground being that it failed to set forth a criminal offense upon which a conviction can be sustained. The Defendant, who had waived jury trial, was found not guilty as to the six counts of bookmaking but guilty as to the violation of 17 M.R.S.A. § 1811. The Defendant appealed.
At trial on the charge of violation of 17 M.R.S.A. § 1811 the State introduced 22 exhibits found in the car which witnesses identified as 'betting slips' which the witnesses said represented abbreviated handwritten notations of wagers placed on sporting events. The Justice found the possession of these slips to be violative of 17 M.R.S.A. § 1811. A typical slip read:
"Bud
--------
Balt 200W
SF 175W
Seattle 70L
Phila 50L
k375
-120
--------
k255"
17 M.R.S.A. § 1811 provides:
'No person shall have in his actual or constructive possession any punch board, seal card, slot gambling machine or other implements, apparatus or materials of any form of gambling, and no person shall solicit, obtain or offer to obtain orders for the sale or delivery of any punch board, seal card, slot gambling machine or other implements, apparatus or material of gambling.'
The count of the indictment which charged the Defendant with violation of this statute read:
'COUNT VII: THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES: that Ferris P. Ferris, of Waterville, County of Kennebec, State of Maine, did on or about December 12, 1969, at Waterville, County of Kennebec, State of Maine, have in his actual and constructive possession certain gambling implements and materials, to wit: numerous betting slips and records used in relation to illegal wagers on horseraces and sporting events unauthorized by law in violation of 17 M.R.S.A. § 1811.'
Although the points on appeal are many we find it necessary to decide only one issue which is determinative of the outcome of this case-the interpretation of the statute as it applied to the count of the indictment upon which Defendant was found guilty.
In interpreting statutes, this Court must effectuate the intention of the Legislature. State v. London, 156 Me. 123, 162 A.2d 150 (1960). We find the intent of the Legislature in enacting this statute was to prohibit the possession or sale of actual gambling devices-those devices or mechanisms the functioning of which determine whether a gambler wins...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Klingerman v. SOL Corp. of Maine
...by words of general import, the general words, if their meaning is uncertain, should be controlled by the specific. State v. Ferris, 284 A.2d 288, 290 (Me.1971). Here, the enumerated individuals upon whom the statute confers a right of action are placed in relationship to the intoxicated pe......
-
Bibeau v. Concord Gen. Mut. Ins. Co.
...because the earth movement exclusion is unambiguous, there is no need to apply the doctrine of ejusdem generis . See State v. Ferris , 284 A.2d 288, 290 (Me. 1971) ("In construing the ambiguous use of the general language of the statute we turn to the familiar rule of ejusdem generis ." (Em......
-
LaMarre v. Town of China
...1042, 1044 (Me. 1994). There are also cases that state the rule of construction in the reverse order. For example, in State v. Ferris, 284 A.2d 288, 290 (Me. 1971), the Court described the rule as follows:When words of enumeration are immediately followed by words of general import the gene......
-
State v. Marquis
......Our rules of statutory. construction include the rule of ejusdem generis,. which dictates that "[w]hen words of enumeration are. immediately followed by words of general import[,] the. general words, when their use is uncertain, should be. governed by the specific." State v. Ferris,. . 9. . 284 A.2d 288, 290 (Me. 1971). The rules of lenity and of. strict construction also guide our interpretation of criminal. statutes. Legassie, 2017 ME 202, ¶ 13, 171 A.3d. 589. "Pursuant to each of these rules, any ambiguity. left unresolved by a strict construction of the statute ......