Town of Mt. Pleasant v. Chimento

Last updated

Town of Mt. Pleasant v. Chimento was a South Carolina case that ruled that while poker was a game of skill, the Dominant Factor Test is not demonstrably a legal standard in South Carolina and thus poker is still subject to the laws related to gambling. The case was later appealed to a higher South Carolina district court where the Judge overturned the trial court's convictions, stating that Dominant Factor Test was the appropriate legal standard and therefore participating in a private home poker game is not illegal, nor is it gambling. The Judge further declared sections of the 207-year-old statute unconstitutionally vague and therefore void. In 2012, the South Carolina Supreme Court upheld the statute and reinstated the convictions of the defendants. [1]

Contents

South Carolina law, specifically Section 16-19-40 ("Unlawful games and betting") of the Code of Laws, originally written in 1802, provides that "any game with cards or dice" played "at any tavern, inn, store ... or in any house used as a place of gaming" is illegal. [2] [3] While this is now being interpreted to mean gambling (betting is mentioned in the statute), a literal reading of the law would mean that games such as Sorry! and Monopoly are technically illegal in South Carolina. [4] [5]

Background

In April 2006, about 20 poker players were arrested when police in Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina, raided a weekly home poker game. The players were charged under South Carolina state statute 16-19-40 "Unlawful Games and Betting" which had been written and enacted by the South Carolina state legislature 204 years before, in 1802, during the first term of Thomas Jefferson's Presidency. All of the poker players, except Bob Chimento, Scott Richards, Michael Williamson, Jeremy Brestel, and John Taylor Willis agreed to a plea bargain and paid fines of no more than $300. The remaining five players fought the arrest and forced the prosecution to take the case to court. [4]

Jeff Phillips, the attorney for the accused, said, "The particular law in South Carolina is so antiquated and so garbled that it's virtually indecipherable. At some point, you need to look at the facts. Poker is not like any other game in the casino. Poker is predominantly a game of skill, therefore it should be treated differently." [4]

SC 16-19-40, as applied to private home card games, has been rarely and sporadically enforced in its 204-year history. This has led some to raise questions of constitutional "equal protection" issues in regards to its selective enforcement. As some have noted the forfeiture aspects of the statute, which allows law enforcement agencies to keep money confiscated, may be a motivating factor in its application.

In presenting his clients' defense, Phillips brought in two expert witnesses: Mike Sexton, the commentator for the World Poker Tour, and Professor Robert Hannum. Hannum was the expert witness who participated in the Colorado case Colorado v. Raley where the defendants were found not guilty. [4] The two expert witnesses were intended to demonstrate that poker was a game of skill and thus fulfilled the requirements of the Dominant Factor Test.

The key phrase the defense focused upon was "house used as a place of gaming." As both the defense and prosecutor agreed that gaming meant "gambling", the defense focused upon the notion that "this case ... turns entirely on whether poker is gambling." [6] The defense thus based its strategy on demonstrating that poker was a game of skill and thus not gambling.

Verdict

According to South Carolina law, it is a misdemeanor to play cards or dice in many locations, including a person's house. [7] As gambling generally involves three elements: prize, consideration, and chance,[ citation needed ] the defense introduced a great deal of testimony to the effect that poker is a game of skill. In issuing his verdict, the judge wrote, "This Court…finds that Texas Hold‐em is a game of skill. The evidence and studies are overwhelming that this is so." [8] The judge, however, found the defendants guilty because the defense failed to show that South Carolina's legislative or judicial system accepted the Dominant Factor Test as normative in the state. "[T]his Court," the judge wrote, "will not set itself to definitively conclude that this State will or does follow the 'Dominant Test' Theory." [8] An appeal by the defense is expected. [8]

Appeal to South Carolina District Court and outcome

In August 2009, the case was appealed to the 9th Circuit District Court of South Carolina, Judge Markley Dennis presiding. After hearing oral arguments and taking consideration of written briefs, Judge Dennis found unequivocally in favor of the Defendant's position that Texas' Hold'em was a game of skill and not chance, as legally defined by the "Predominance Test," and overturned their convictions and fines. Furthermore, Judge Dennis found not only that the defendant's conduct did not violate the law as it was written, holding that Texas Hold'em poker was a game of skill and not chance, but also that sections of SC 16-19-40 were unconstitutionally vague and therefore void. [9]

After the District Court's decision on October 1, 2009, South Carolina Attorney General and 2010 South Carolina gubernatorial candidate, Henry McMaster, decided to take control of the case from Mount Pleasant City Attorney Ira Grossman (who had been categorically unsuccessful during the initial appeal) and filed a notice of appeal to the South Carolina State Supreme Court. [10] The case is expected to be scheduled for a hearing sometime in 2010.

Appeal to the South Carolina Supreme Court

On October 1, 2009, South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster took control of the case, from Mount Pleasant City Attorney Ira Grossman, and in late December 2009 filed a formal appeal to the South Carolina Supreme Court. [11] This after the South Carolina 9th circuit district court declared that sections of South Carolina 16-10-40 as void for being both unconstitutionally broad and unconstitutionally vague.

The South Carolina District court also declared that even if the constitutional issues were not considered, that home games of poker would not be subject to a charge under SC 16-19-40, as it was a game of skill and not a game of chance under the "Dominant Theory Test.", The Dominant Theory Test or "Predominance Test" is a legal concept and established precedent which courts have used to judge whether an activity is gambling/game of chance or a game of skill.

On January 22, 2004, the South Carolina Attorney General's Office, in a formal opinion, had stated that the Dominant Theory Test was the proper legal standard in South Carolina to judge whether an activity was gambling or a legal game of skill under SC 16-19-40. [12]

In the formal 2004 opinion [12] that while McMaster's office clearly states that the Dominant Theory Test is the proper legal standard, that the South Carolina Attorney General's Office did not feel that Poker met this standard and was thus illegal.

In his 2009 appeal brief to the South Carolina Supreme Court, McMaster contradicted his office's formal opinion in 2004 stating that the Dominant Theory Test was not the proper legal standard and declared that "that 'chance' need not be determined with respect to a particular game for purpose of the gambling statute" and "that the Legislature sought to ban all 'gaming' for stakes at designated locations." As of March 2010, the South Carolina Supreme Court had yet to indicate whiter it will agree to hear the case.

The South Carolina Supreme Court

In the summer of 2010, the South Carolina Supreme Court agreed to hear oral arguments in the case. The hearing was set for October 19, 2010.

On October 19, 2010 oral arguments were heard in the case by the South Carolina Supreme Court. During oral arguments, Senior Assistant Attorney General Havird "Sonny" Jones contradicted his office's own written brief in the case and said "It is our position that this statute does not encompass the Friday night poker game or the penny ante bridge game,"

In the State's official written appeal brief submitted to the Court the Attorney General's Office wrote:

"One obvious reason that 'chance' need not be determined with respect to a particular reason game for purpose of the gambling statute is that the Legislature sought to ban all 'gaming' for stakes at designated locations," [13]

Chief Justice Jean H. Toal commented on the obvious contradiction by stating: "I am surprised that you made that concession." "That there are some forms of personal card playing in your home, among friends, that involve money, that are not gaming." [14]

The State further asserted that they were no longer pursuing the legal question of skill vs chance as it pertains to what constitutes "gambling", as well as no longer asserting, as they had in the written brief, that all forms of cards games for money in any location listed in South Carolina statute 16-19-40 was illegal. The State now asserted that it would focus on what constitutes a "gambling house." [14]

Justice Toal once again pointed out the vagueness and inconsistency of the statute and the Attorney General's office's new position during oral arguments by stating: "We're stuck with a very old statute that doesn't say one word about betting anything," [14]

Decision

On November 21, 2012 the South Carolina Supreme Court issued their decision. Justice Costa M. Pleicones wrote for the majority, upholding the statute as constitutional and affirming the defendants' convictions. However, the court declined to adopt the Dominant Factor Test, stating only that "[w]hether an activity is gaming/gambling is not dependent upon the relative roles of chance and skill, but whether there is money or something of value wagered on the game's outcome."

Chief Justice Toal concurred in the judgment but argued that the law was unconstitutional (though the defendants' conduct would have excluded them from challenging the law's constitutionality in good faith), and urged the South Carolina General Assembly to modernize the state's gambling statutes. Justice Kaye Gorenflo Hearn dissented in a separate opinion, arguing that the law was unconstitutionally void for vagueness. [1]

Related Research Articles

A writ of mandamus is a judicial remedy in the English and American common law system consisting of a court order that commands a government official or entity to perform an act it is legally required to perform as part of its official duties, or to refrain from performing an act the law forbids it from doing. Writs of mandamus are usually used in situations where a government official has failed to act as legally required or has taken a legally prohibited action. They cannot be issued to compel an authority to do something against the law. For example, it cannot be used to force a lower court to take a specific action on applications that have been made, but if the court refuses to rule one way or the other, then a mandamus can be used to order the court to rule on the applications.

Briggs v. Elliott, 342 U.S. 350 (1952), on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina, challenged school segregation in Summerton, South Carolina. It was the first of the five cases combined into Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the famous case in which the U.S. Supreme Court declared racial segregation in public schools to be unconstitutional by violating the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Following the Brown decision, the district court issued a decree that struck down the school segregation law in South Carolina as unconstitutional and required the state's schools to integrate. Harry and Eliza Briggs, Reverend Joseph A. DeLaine, and Levi Pearson were awarded Congressional Gold Medals posthumously in 2003.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund</span> Organization in New York, United States

The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. is an American civil rights organization and law firm based in New York City.

Online gambling is any kind of gambling conducted on the internet. This includes virtual poker, casinos, and sports betting. The first online gambling venue opened to the general public was ticketing for the Liechtenstein International Lottery in October 1994. Today, the market is worth around $40 billion globally each year, according to various estimates.

Alienation of affections is a common law tort, abolished in many jurisdictions. Where it still exists, an action is brought by a spouse against a third party alleged to be responsible for damaging the marriage, most often resulting in divorce. The defendant in an alienation of affections suit is typically an adulterous spouse's lover, although family members, counselors, and therapists or clergy members who have advised a spouse to seek divorce have also been sued for alienation of affections.

Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court reversed the conviction of John L. Cheek, a tax protester, for willful failure to file tax returns and tax evasion. The Court held that an actual good-faith belief that one is not violating the tax law, based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law, negates willfulness, even if that belief is irrational or unreasonable. The Court also ruled that an actual belief that the tax law is invalid or unconstitutional is not a good faith belief based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law, and is not a defense.

<i>United States v. Extreme Associates, Inc.</i>

United States v. Extreme Associates, 431 F.3d 150, is a 2005 U.S. law case revolving around issues of obscenity. Extreme Associates, a pornography company owned by Rob Zicari and his wife Lizzy Borden, was prosecuted by the federal government for alleged distribution of obscenity across state lines. After several years of legal proceedings, the matter ended on March 11, 2009, with a plea agreement by Rob Zicari and Lizzy Borden.

A rape shield law is a law that limits the ability to introduce evidence about the past sexual activity of a complainant in a sexual assault trial, or that limits cross-examination of complainants about their past sexual behaviour in sexual assault cases. The term also refers to a law that prohibits the publication of the identity of a complainant in a sexual assault case.

Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the right of a criminal defendant to present evidence that a third party instead committed the crime. The Court vacated the rape and murder conviction in South Carolina of a man who had been denied the opportunity to present evidence of a third party's guilt, because the trial court believed the prosecutor's forensic evidence was too strong for the defendant's evidence to raise an inference of innocence. The Court ruled unanimously that this exclusion violated the right of a defendant to have a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense, because the strength of a prosecutor's case had no logical relationship to whether a defendant's evidence was too weak to be admissible.

John Webb was an American jurist who served as an associate justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court (1986–1998). Prior to serving on North Carolina's highest court, Justice Webb had been a Superior Court (trial) judge and a judge of the North Carolina Court of Appeals.

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..." The four essential protections included are prohibitions against, for the same offense:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">South Carolina Court of Appeals</span> Intermediate appellate court of South Carolina

The South Carolina Court of Appeals is the intermediate-level appellate court for the state of South Carolina.

<i>Commonwealth v. Dent</i>

Commonwealth v. Dent, 2010 PA Super 47, 992 A.2d 190 (2010), was a Pennsylvania court case wherein a Columbia County Court ruled that poker was a game of skill not luck, thus not illegal gambling per the state statutes. Later, On April 2, 2010, a Pennsylvania Superior Court overturned the ruling declaring poker to be a game of luck.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in South Carolina since a federal court order took effect on November 20, 2014. Another court ruling on November 18 had ordered the state to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions. Following the 2014 ruling of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Bostic v. Schaefer, which found Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional and set precedent on every state in the circuit, one judge accepted marriage license applications from same-sex couples until the South Carolina Supreme Court, in response to a request by the Attorney General, ordered him to stop. A federal district court ruled South Carolina's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional on November 12, with implementation of that decision stayed until noon on November 20. The first same-sex wedding ceremony was held on November 19.

The Dominant Factor Test is the principle that most U.S. jurisdictions use in determining, legally, what is and is not gambling. The California Supreme Court said:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gambling in New Jersey</span> Overview of gambling in New Jersey

Gambling in New Jersey includes casino gambling in Atlantic City, the New Jersey Lottery, horse racing, off-track betting, charity gambling, amusement games, and social gambling. New Jersey's gambling laws are among the least restrictive in the United States. In 2013, the state began to allow in-state online gambling. Five years later, the state won a lawsuit that dismantled Nevada's monopoly on legal sports betting.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in South Carolina</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in the U.S. state of South Carolina may face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in South Carolina as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, although the state legislature has not repealed its sodomy laws. Same-sex couples and families headed by same-sex couples are eligible for all of the protections available to opposite-sex married couples. However, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity is not banned statewide.

In the United States, a public defender is a lawyer appointed by the courts and provided by the state or federal governments to represent and advise those who cannot afford to hire a private attorney. Public defenders are full-time attorneys employed by the state or federal governments. The public defender program is one of several types of criminal legal aid in the United States.

Franklin v. South Carolina, 218 U.S. 161 (1910) appealed the conviction of Pink Franklin for the murder of South Carolina Constable Henry H. Valentine in 1907. Franklin was a sharecropper who wished to leave his employer although his employer had advanced Franklin wages under a contract based on the so-called "peonage laws". A warrant was obtained and when Valentine came to the house, a shootout occurred, killing Valentine and injuring Franklin, his wife Patsy, and another constable who was there. The defense included claims that Franklin acted in self-defense and that the peonage laws were unjust. In appeal, the defense claimed that the make-up of the jury, all white based on the requirement that the jury be based on those who were eligible to vote, was based on unconstitutional racism in election laws stemming from the 1895 South Carolina constitution. Franklin's conviction was upheld in all appeals, including the appeal before the United States Supreme Court heard in April 1910.

Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (1986), was a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that clarified the relationship of the right to effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment to other constitutional rights in criminal procedure. In this case, evidence against the defendant was probably seized illegally, violating the Fourth Amendment, but he lost the chance to argue that point due to his lawyer's ineffectiveness. The prosecution argued that the defendant's attempt to make a Sixth Amendment argument via a habeas corpus petition was really a way to sneak his Fourth Amendment argument in through the back door. The Court unanimously disagreed, and held that the Fourth Amendment issue and the Sixth Amendment issue represented different constitutional values, and had different requirements for prevailing in court, and therefore were to be treated separately by rules of procedure. Therefore, the habeas corpus petition could go forward. In its opinion, the Court also gave guidance on how to apply its decisions in Stone v. Powell and Strickland v. Washington.

References

  1. 1 2 South Carolina Supreme Court (November 21, 2012). "TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, Appellant, v. Robert L. CHIMENTO, Scott Richards, Michael Williamson, Jeremy Brestel and John T. Willis, Respondents" (PDF). South Carolina Judicial Department. p. 30. Retrieved May 29, 2016.
  2. ↑ Ciaffone, Bob (December 27, 2005). "South Carolina Gambling Laws: Archaic laws likely to be tested in South Carolina". Cardplayer Magazine. Retrieved July 8, 2009.
  3. ↑ South Carolina Code of Laws, Title 16, Chapter 19 Archived 2009-08-20 at the Wayback Machine .
  4. 1 2 3 4 Murray, Stephen (February 10, 2009). "Mike Sexton to Appear at South Carolina Poker Trial". Cardplayer Magazine. Retrieved July 7, 2009.
  5. ↑ https://www.scribd.com/doc/20497135/SC-Circuit-Court-Order-Chimento-Et-Alv-Town-of-Mt-Pleasant-10-01-09, Archived 2012-10-26 at the Wayback Machine
  6. ↑ "Brief of the Amicus Curiae the Poker Players Alliance in Support of Defendants". SCRIDB. February 11, 2009. Retrieved July 7, 2009.
  7. ↑ S.C. Code, Section 16-19-40(a).
  8. 1 2 3 Humphrey, Chuck. "Poker as a Game of Skill: Recent Cases" (PDF). American Bar Association. Retrieved July 6, 2009.
  9. ↑ "[SC] Circuit Court Order: Chimento, et. Alv. Town of Mt. Pleasant (10/01/09)". Archived from the original on October 26, 2012. Retrieved September 17, 2017.
  10. ↑ "State to appeal poker ruling | the Post and Courier - Charleston, South Carolina". Archived from the original on March 18, 2012. Retrieved November 8, 2009.
  11. ↑ "McMaster appeals poker ruling | the Post and Courier, Charleston SC - News, Sports, Entertainment". Archived from the original on October 28, 2010. Retrieved March 28, 2010.
  12. 1 2 "Archived copy". Archived from the original (PDF) on July 7, 2018. Retrieved February 9, 2014.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  13. ↑ "McMaster appeals poker ruling". Archived from the original on July 1, 2012. Retrieved October 20, 2010.
  14. 1 2 3 http://www.thestate.com/2010/10/20/1520906/top-sc-prosecutor-casual-poker.html%5B%5D
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.