stating that “the maxim noscitur a sociis, which translates ‘it is known from its associates,’ provides that the meaning of a word takes color and expression from the purport of the entire phrase it is a part, and must be read in harmony with its context.”
How later courts described this case
- stating that “the maxim noscitur a sociis, which translates ‘it is known from its associates,’ provides that the meaning of a word takes color and expression from the purport of the entire phrase it is a part, and must be read in harmony with its context.”
- explaining that penal statutes must be “limited in application to cases falling clearly within the language of the statute”
- noting that penal statutes “must be strictly construed against the state and limited in application to cases falling clearly within the language of the statute”
- the maxim noscitur a sociis provides that the meaning of a word must be determined in relation to surrounding language and must be read in harmony with its context
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
COCHRAN, J.,
dissenting.
*463 I would affirm the conviction of Turner as the operator of an illegal gambling enterprise, activity or operation in violation of Code § 18.2-328. As defined in Code § 18.2-325, an operator includes one who conducts part of such a proscribed endeavor.
The evidence shows conclusively that Turner was engaged in the illegal gambling enterprise known as “numbers”. According to the F.B.I. Special Agent who testified as an expert witness, the betting slips, sheet containing numbers, and cash found on Turner established that he was “[a]t least” a “pick up man” or “bag-man” in a numbers operation. In a typical numbers activity a “bagman” picks up wagering slips from the “writer”, who writes the slips and collects the bets, and delivers them to a “controller”, who turns them over to the gambling office for processing. While the expert conceded that bagmen are not always essential to a numbers operation, it is apparent that someone picks up numbers slips and has them processed or there is no numbers operation. Whether the “bagman”, the “writer”, or the “controller” performs this function is of no consequence. Undoubtedly, the same person could write numbers slips, collect bets, and deliver the slips and cash to the office, or in a large operation, these functions might be spread among various persons.
Whether Turner was no more than a “bagman” or was in a more responsible, higher echelon of the numbers operation, he was conducting the part of the business assigned to him. He was an integral member of the team. While there is no evidence that he was the owner, the chief executive, or even one of the lesser leaders, he was performing important duties in the business routine.
I do not agree that the statute reflects a legislative intent to apply only to those in charge of a numbers operation. I agree that the statute is not intended to apply to those who participate or engage in a numbers operation merely by purchasing chances. Such bettors come within the purview of Code § 18.2-326. In my view, however, the statute was intended to apply, and does apply, to each person performing any part of the business of accepting money from bettors, issuing numbers slips, recording wagers, and paying winning gamblers. Code § 18.2-330, applicable to those who knowingly aid, abet, or assist in the operation of a gambling activity, does not apply, in my opinion, to one who is employed as a “bagman” to promote the business of his employer. Turner was employed not in a charitable enterprise but in a profit-making *464 business prohibited by law, and he should be held accountable for his conduct.
CARRICO, C.J., joins in dissent.