No. 20-77
(1) Section 563.374, RSMo 1969 would not prohibit the printing of advertisements or other promotional material in Missouri for use in consumer sweepstakes conducted outside this state when the printed material is shipped directly to the out-of-state locations. (2) Section 563.430, RSMo 1969 and Section 563.440, RSMo 1969 do not apply to or prohibit the printing of advertisements or promotional material in Missouri for use in consumer sweepstakes conducted outside the state when the printed material is shipped directly to the out-of-state locations.
Cite as Mo. Op. Att'y Gen. No. 20-77
CRIMINAL LAW:
LOTTERIES :
GAMBLING :
(1) Section 563 . 374, RSMo 1969 would
not prohibit the printing of adver-
tisements or other promotional mate-
rial in Missouri for use in consumer
sweepstakes conducted outside this state when the printed material
is shipped directly to the out-of-state locations.
(2) Section
563.430, RSMo 1969 and Section 563.440 , RSMo 1969 do not apply
to or prohibit the printing of advertisements or promotional
material in Missouri for use in consumer sweepstakes conducted
outside the state when the printed material is shipped directly
to the out-of-state locations.
OPINION NO . 20
January 14, 1977
Honorable James F . Conway
Missouri Senate, District 6
c/o Senate Post Office
State Capitol
Jefferson City, Missouri
65101
Dear Senator Conway:
F l L E 0
:20
This is in reply to your request for an opinion of this
office concerning the applicability of Section 563.374 , RSMo 1969,
Section 563.430, RSMo 1969, and Section 563.440, RSMo 1969 , to
advertisements and other promotional material for a consumer
sweepstakes printed in Missouri but shipped out of the state for
use elsewhere .
Your specific questions in this regard are as
follows:
"1. First, would the printing of these materials
violate Section 563.374, R.S.Mo . , which provides,
in part, that any person 'who shall sell , store,
possess or transport except in interstate com-
merce any . . . lottery tickets . • . or any
other evidence of transactions incident to a lot-
tery ... shall be deemed guilty of a misde-
meanor . . . ' ?
" 2. Section 563.430 seems to prohibit the adver-
tisement of a lottery by any medium printed or
circulated in Missouri, whether o r not the lot-
tery will be conducted in Missouri.
We would
like your opinion as to whether this section
{or any other provisions of Missouri law) pro-
hibi t the printing of advertisements for an
Honorable James F. Conway
out-of-state lottery, if the advertisements
are neither circulated nor published in
Missouri.
"3 . Moreover, does the assessment of a fine
under Section 563 .440 against any person who
'shall advertise or cause to be advertised for
sale , or who shall print or publish an adver-
tisement, or shall aid or assist, or be in
anywise concerned in the sale or exposure of
the sale of any lottery ticket or tickets . .
within this state or elsewhere ... ' apply
to the transaction above described?
"4. Lastly, if in your opinion the cited stat-
utes do prohibit the transactions described
can such statutes constitutionally be applied
to prohibit the transactions herein described
or would such an application be an unconstitu-
tional abridgement of interstate commerce?"
As background to the above inquiries you have informed us
as follows :
"A nationally known Missouri corporation
in connection with the promotion of its na-
tionally known product, from time to time
conducts consumer sweepstakes in states other
than Missouri permitting such consumer games.
We are assuming for purposes of this request
that the sweepstakes would not be permitted
in the State of Missouri.
The company does
not intend to advertise or conduct the sweep-
stakes in Missouri or other states where not
permitted by local law.
The company has
obtained a favorable opinion from the federal
postal authorities that the sweepstakes does
not violate federal lottery laws.
"The corporation would prefer to employ
Missouri printers to print advertising and
other promotional material used in connection
with the sweepstakes, if that can be done with-
out violating Missouri law.
The materials
could , if necessary, be shipped directly by
the printers in sealed containers to the out-
of- state locations where such materials would
-
2 -
Honorable James F. Conway
be used.
We would appreciate an expression
of opinion from your office concerning whether
printing within Missouri of these advertise-
ments and lottery promotional material for use
outside the State of Missouri would violate the
Missouri statutes that forbid sale, possession,
or transportation of gaming devices and the
sale or advertisement of the sale of lottery
tickets.
11
Section 563.374 provides as follows:
"Every person who shall sell, store , pos-
sess or transport except in interstate com-
merce any punchboard, slot machine, lottery
ticket, roulette wheel, policy slip, book,
list of numbers or any other evidence of trans-
actions incident to a lottery , or any other
gambling device , equipment or article, shall
be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor.
All such
equipment , devices and articles are hereby
declared contraband and may be seized by any
peace officer to be disposed of as herein
provided. "
...
In Opinion No . 5 issued to Harold Bamburg on August 15, 1952,
this office interpreted the provisions of the above statute in a
factual context very similar to the one presented in your opinion
request.
The opinion stated that the selling, storing , possession
and transportation in interstate commerce of any article incident
to a lottery was not prohibited by Section 563.374.
We believe
that the reasoning of that opinion is equally applicable to the
fact situation described in your request, and we conclude that
Section 563 . 374 would not prohibit the printing of advertise-
ments or other promotional material in Missouri for use in con-
sumer sweepstakes conducted outside the state when the printed
material is shipped directly to the out-of -state locations.
This office has also examined Sections 563.430 and 563 . 440
to determine their applicability to this fact situation.
Section 563.430 provides as follows:
"If any person shall make or establish ,
or aid or assist in making o r establishing,
any lottery, gift enterprise, policy or scheme
of drawing in the nature of a lottery as a
-
3 -
Honorable James F . Conway
bus iness or avocation in this state , or s h a l l
advertise or make public , or cause to be adver-
tis ed or made public, by means of any newspaper ,
pamphlet , circ ular , or ot her written or p r inted
not ice thereof , printed or circulated in this
state, any such l ottery , gift enterprise , pol-
icy or s cheme or drawing i n the nature of a
lot tery , whether the same is being or is t o
be conducted , held or drawn wi thin or without
thi s state , he shall be deemed gu i lty of a
fe l ony , and , upon conviction , shall be punished
by impr isonment in the penitent iary f or not
les s than two nor mor e than five year s , o r by
impris onment i n the county j a i l or wor khouse
f or not less t han six nor more than twelve
months , prov ided , however , that this section
sha ll apply on ly where there i s con s i der ation
in the f orm of money , or its equivalent , p a id
to or received by the person awarding the
pri ze . "
Se ction 563 . 440 p r ovides as fo l lows :
"Any person who shal l sell o r expose to
sale , or cause to be sold or e xposed to s a le ,
or s hall keep on hand for the p urpose of sale ,
o r shall advertise or cause to be advertised
for sale, or who shall print or publish an
adverti sement, or shall aid or assist, or be
in any wise conce rned in the sale or exposure
to sale of any lottery ticket or ticke ts, or
any share o r part of any lottery ticket in
any l otte ry, or device in the nature of a
lotte ry wi thin this state or elsewhere and
shall be convic ted the reof in any court of
competent jurisdiction , shall, f o r each and
every offense, f orfeit and pay a s um not
exceeding one thousand dollars."
The primary r ule of construction in r e gard to criminal stat-
utes is that they are to be construed strictly and given no broader
application than is warranted by thei r p ].ain and unambiguous terms.
State v. Raccagno, 530 S.W.2d 699 (Mo. ' 1975)'; State v . Alderman,
500 S . W.2d 35 (Mo.Ct.App. at Spr . 1973); State v. Wi l bur, 462
S.W.2d 653 (Mo . 1971).
As a consequence of the above guidelines , the rule has devel-
oped that a criminal statute should not be construed to include
-
4 -
Honorable James F. Conway
individuals other than those specifically enumerated in the law .
This rule was set out in State v. Hall , 351 S.W . 2d 460 (K.C .Mo.
App. 1961), when the court stated:
" ... A criminal statute is not to be held
to include offenses or persons other than
those which are clearly described and provided
for both within the spirit and letter of the
statute, ..
• " Id . at 463.
See State v . McClary, 399 S.W . 2d 597 (K . C.Mo.App . 1966).
An analysis of Section 563.430, RSMo, leads us to the con-
clusion that it applies to making , establishing, advertising, etc.,
lotteries in the state of Missouri whether the lottery is conducted
within Missouri or outside this state.
For instance , it would be
i llegal to advertise in Missouri a lottery conducted in another
state, even if the lottery was legal in the other jurisdiction .
However , we do not believe that the terms of the statute would
prohibit the manufacture of articles relating to a consumer
sweepstakes conducted outside Missouri when the articles are
shipped directly in interstate commerce after their manufacture ,
and not used within this state for any purpose.
Section 563 .440, RSMo, prohibits selling, advertising for
sale, etc., any lottery ticket or device in the nature of a lottery,
whether the lottery is conducted in this state or elsewhere .
And,
although this section differs from Section 563.430 in that it con-
tains the phrase " ... or who shall print or publish an adver-
tisement ..
. ",we do not believe that this proviso in Section
563.440 would prohibit the printing of advertisements or other
promotional material for a consumer sweepstakes conducted outside
Missouri when the material is shipped directly in interstate
commerce after it is printed , and not used in this state for any
purpose .
The terms "print" and "printed" have been inter preted in a
variety of ways by the Missouri Supreme Court.
For instance,
in the case of In re Publishing Docket in Local Newspaper , 187
s.w. 1174 (Mo. Bane 1915), the court held the word "print " in
a statute relating to the Supreme Court docket to mean the making
of an impression with inked type .
In reaching this result, the
court distinguished the meaning of the term "print" from that
of the word "publish" , and concluded that under the provisions
of the statute in question, it was not necessary to publish the
docket in a local newspaper.
Likewise, in the case of Ackerman
v. Globe-Democrat Publishing Company , 368 S.W.2d 469 (Mo. 1963),
the court distinguished the term "print" from the term "publish"
-
5 -
Honorable James F. Conway
as it was used in the context of that case .
However , in the case
of In re Publication of Docket of Supreme Court, 232 S .W. 454
(Mo. Bane 1921), the court compl etely reversed its decision in
In re Publishing Docket in Local Newspaper, supra, and adopted
the dissenting opinion from the latter case as the holding of the
court .
In effect , the court in In re Publication of Docket of
Supreme Court , supra, held that the word "print" was susceptible
to a variety of meanings, and in the context of its use in the
statute relating to the Supreme Court docket , the term included
the publication of the docket in a local newspaper.
The positions
taken by the court with respect to the meaning of the word "print"
clearly show that the term has a variety of meanings depending
upon the context in which it is used .
See In re Publication of
Docket of Supreme Court, supra; State ex rel. Page v. Vossbrinck,
257 S . W.2d 208 (St.L . Ct .App. 1953).
It seems clear that the purpose of Section 563.440 is to
prevent a person from selling or advertising for sale in Missouri
lottery tickets or devices in the nature of a lottery whether the
lottery itself takes place in this state or elsewhere.
The statute
anticipates affirmative action in this state for the purpose of
promoting a lottery.
This interpretation of the legislature's
intent with respect to Section 563.440 is bolstered by both the
exception contained in Section 563.374, RSMo, allowing individuals
to sell, store , possess or transport gambling devices, articles ,
etc. , in interstate commerce, and the use of the term print in
conjunction with the term publish in Section 563.440.
Therefore ,
we conclude that in the context of Section 563 .440 the term "print"
must mean more than merely making an impression with inked type.
We believe that the term "print" as used in the phrase " ...
print or publish an advertisement ..
. " refers to the printing,
and the dissemination of that material in this state for the
purpose of advertising lottery tickets or any device in the nature
of a lottery.
Consequently , we do not believe that this statute
would prohibit the printing of advertisements or other promotional
material for a consumer sweepstakes conducted outside Missouri
where the material is shipped directly in interstate commerce
after it is printed , and not used in this state for any purpose .
In light of our conclusions with respect to Sections 563 . 374,
563 . 430, and 563.440, we find it unnecessary to respond to the
fourth question presented in your opinion request.
CONCLUSION
It is , therefore, the opinion of this office that:
-
6 -
Honorable James F . Conway
(1)
Section 563 . 374, RSMo 1969 would not prohibit the print-
ing of advertisements or other promotional material in Missouri
for use in consumer sweepstakes conducted outside this state when
the printed material is shipped directly to the out-of-state
locations.
(2)
Section 563 . 430, RSMo 1969 and Section 563 . 440 , RSMo
1969 do not apply to or prohibit the printing of advertisements
or promotional material in Missouri for use in consumer sweep-
stakes conducted outside the state when the printed material
is shipped directly to the out-of-state locations .
The foregoing opinion, which I hereby approve , was prepared
by my assistant, William F. Arnet .
Very truly yours,
!l::;;c~~
Enclosur e :
Op . No . 5
8- 14-52 , Bamburg
Attorney General
-
7 -