Massachusetts Lawyer

Carroll Eugene Turner, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Supreme Court of Virginia

226 Va. 456

The officer picked up the pieces of paper, which, upon later analysis, were found to be numbers racket betting slips. When Turner was searched, he was found in possession of cash and a large sheet of paper with numbers written on it.  An F.B.I. Special Agent as an expert in numbers operations, testified on behalf of the Commonwealth testified that in his opinion they constituted records of a gambling operation. He also testified that the documents found on Turner showed that he was “at least” a “pick up man” or “bagman.” The expert further testified that a “bagman” served the operation by picking up wagering slips prepared by a person who collects the bets and by turning them over to the person who delivers the slips to the numbers office, bank, or clearing house. Defendant was convicted in a Jury Trial of operating an illegal gambling enterprise under Virginia Code § 18.2-328.

Whether the evidence was insufficient to convict the defendant of being an operator within the meaning of the statute?

The court held that “though Turner was convicted under Virginia Code § 18.2-328, the focus of our analysis is upon Virginia Code § 18.2-325 which defines the word “operator,” a term crucial to the offense defined in Virginia Code § 18.2-328.  The Commonwealth does not contend that Turner financed, managed, supervised, directed, or owned all or part of the numbers operation the investigation disclosed. Instead, the Commonwealth’s entire case against Turner is based on the contention that the evidence showed he conducted in part the business of the numbers operation. In essence, the Commonwealth reads the word “conducts” to mean “engages in” or “participates in.” We think the Commonwealth’s position is at odds with the readily discernible legislative intent.  There are at least three ways to ascertain the legislative intent concerning this statute: (1) by adopting the usual meaning of the word “conduct,” (2) by applying the meaning of the word “conduct” as it relates to the other words listed in Virginia Code § 18.2-325 and italicized above, and (3) by analyzing Virginia Code § 18.2-328 along with other statutory provisions with which it is in pari materia.  By every approach, the evidence adduced against Turner is insufficient to convict him of the violation with which he was charged.  Thus, the Commonwealth’s reliance upon the word “conduct” as the basis of Turner’s conviction is misplaced. There was no proof that Turner was in command of the criminal gambling operation or that he led the operation or controlled it.”

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group.  They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions.  The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

Originally published here.