People v. 8,000 Punchboard Card Devices

Opinion

CALDECOTT, P. J.

The People appeal from a judgment in favor of the Boys’ Club of Hayward upon a complaint for declaratory relief filed by the Alameda County District Attorney. The district attorney had sought authorization to destroy 8,000 punchboard card devices seized from the Boys’ Club of Hayward on July 14, 1981. The cards contained winning numbers or symbols

[620]

concealed by opaque coverings and were being sold for 50 cents each as bingo games for charity.

In 1976 the electorate approved the addition of article IV, section 19, subdivision (c), to the California Constitution. The new subdivision provides that “the Legislature by statute may authorize cities and counties to provide for bingo games, but only for charitable purposes.”

Enabling legislation had already been enacted in 1975 to authorize bingo games if the constitutional amendment was approved. The legislation added section 326.5 to the Penal Code and defined “bingo” as “a game of chance 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.” (Former Pen. Code, § 326.5, subd. (n).) Not included in this definition of bingo were punchboards, which since 1953 have been declared by Penal Code section 330c to be illegal slot machines. A punchboard is defined in Penal Code section 330c as “any card, board or other device which may be played or operated by pulling, pressing, punching out or otherwise removing any slip, tab, paper or other substance therefrom to disclose any concealed number, name or symbol.”

In 1979 the Legislature amended the statutory definition of charitable “bingo” games to add, “Notwithstanding Section 330c, as used in this section, the game of bingo shall include cards having numbers or symbols which are concealed and preprinted in a manner providing for distribution of prizes.” (Former Pen. Code, § 326.5, subd. (n).)

1

The parties agree that the punch-board card devices in the present case are within this statutory definition. Appellant contends, however, that the amended statutory definition is unconstitutional, because the electorate intended the term “bingo” in the constitutional amendment to be defined as it was in the original enabling legislation. (See 63 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 524, 531 (1980) [stating opinion that punchboard bingo is not constitutionally authorized].)