Town of Mt. Pleasant v. Chimento was a South Carolina case that rules 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 relegated to gambling.
South Carolina law, specifically Section 16-19-40 ("Unlawful games and betting") of the Code of Laws, 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.[1][2] 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.[3]
In April 2006, about 20 poker players were arrested when police in Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina, raided a weekly home poker game. 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.[3]
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.”[3]
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 defendents were found not guilty.[3] 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."[4] The defense thus based its strategy on demonstrating that poker was a game of skill and thus not gambling.
According to South Carolina law, it is a misdemeanor to play cards or dice in many locations, including a person's house.<S.C. Code, Section 16-19-40(a).</ref> 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."[5] 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."[5] An appeal is expected.[according to whom?][citation needed]