Town of Mount Pleasant v. Chimento, 737 S.E.2d 830

Stallings hosted regular poker games at his Mount Pleasant home advertised via a social-network site, attracting players including respondents who paid buy-ins and where Stallings took a rake to cover costs.
The group often played twice weekly with 5–20 dollar buy-ins and pots typically small, and participants wagered money on the games.
Respondents were charged under § 16-19-40(a) for playing a card game in a house used as a place of gaming; the events occurred at a private residence, not a dedicated commercial gaming venue.
The municipal judge admitted expert testimony that Texas Hold’em is a game of skill, but the court proceeded on whether the statute criminalizes gambling in a residence when money is wagered.
The circuit court reversed, concluding either a directed verdict should be granted or the statute unconstitutional; the majority reversed and upheld the convictions.
There is ongoing dispute about what qualifies as a “house used as a place of gaming” and whether gambling on a skill-based game still falls within the prohibition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether respondents were entitled to a directed verdict.	State argues §16-19-40 prohibits gambling in a house used for gaming; wagering on skill-based poker in a home is prohibited.	Respondents argue wagering on a game of skill in a residence is not prohibited by §16-19-40.	No; directed verdict not warranted; statute covers gambling in a house used as a place of gaming.
Whether §16-19-40(a) is unconstitutional on vagueness/overbreadth grounds.	State contends the statute provides adequate notice and standards; not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad.	Respondents contend the phrase 'house used as a place of gaming' is vague and gives police too much discretion.	Not unconstitutional on the majority view; statute is sufficiently definite given prior interpretations and context.

State v. Lane, 82 S.C. 144, 63 S.E. 612 (1909) (evidence of gambling den need not prove repeated gambling)
Faulkener, 13 S.C.L. (2 McCord) 438 (1823) (residence can qualify as prohibited location under early version of statute)
Brice, 4 S.C.L. (2 Brev.) 66 (1806) (dissent noting casual home gambling not intended by statute)
State v. Red, 41 S.C.L. (7 Rich.) 8 (1853) (gambling depends on wagering, not skill vs chance)
State v. White, 218 S.E.2d 754 (1950) (recognizes gambling scope including skill-based wagering)