Court Opinion

ID: 9625138
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:29:15.013051+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:01.751209
License: Public Domain

PLEICONES, J., and Acting Justice DANIEL F. PIEPER
dissenting in separate opinions.
Justice PLEICONES:
I agree with the majority that the machines in question are gambling devices that violate S.C.Code Ann. § 12-21-2710 *57(2000), but would hold they meet the exception found in S.C.Code Ann. § 61-4-580(3) (Supp.2003). Accordingly, I would reverse the circuit court’s order.
In 1929, this Court held a machine that dispensed a package of mints for each nickel deposited, and in addition dispensed, at random intervals, between 2 and 20 brass tokens, was an unlawful gambling device under the predecessor to § 12-21-2710.9 Harvie v. Heise, 150 S.C. 277, 148 S.E. 66 (1929). In my opinion, that decision controls the gambling device issue raised here.
Having determined that the dispenser/phone card/game piece scheme here is a gambling device, the next issue is whether it is permitted under § 61-4-580. The General Assembly has legalized games of chances “in connection with the sale, promotion or advertisement of a consumer good or service ...” if conducted on premises licensed for the sale of beer or wine. § 61-4-580(3). The majority concludes that the phone cards and dispensing machines are without this statute because “the game pieces are not a legitimate promotion or sweepstakes.” While I agree that the phone cards are a foolish investment, I do not believe the statute limits promotions or sweepstakes to those where the consumer good or product that is the subject of the promotion is deemed by a court to be “legitimate” or a “good deal.” As neither the wisdom nor the legitimacy of the promotion is an issue, I can find no basis to deny these machines and cards the exemption provided by the statute.
*58I would reverse the decision of the circuit court, and hold that these devices are within the ambit of § 61-4-580(3), and thus are legal when placed in licensed premises.10

. This gambling device statute has been amended over the years as the technology evolved, but the essential structure has remained intact. The version in effect in 1929 read:
It shall be unlawful for any person to keep on his premises or operate or permit to be kept on his premises or operated within this State, any slot machine of whatever name or kind, except automatic weighing, measuring, musical and vending machines which are so constructed as to give a certain uniform and fair return in value for each coin deposited therein, and in which there is no element of chance. Any person whomsoever who shall violate this section shall be subject to a fine of not more than one hundred dollars, or imprisonment upon the public works of the County wherein the offense is committed for a period of not more than thirty days.
2 S.C.Code § 196(1922).

. It is unclear from the record whether any of appellants are licensed premises within the meaning of § 61-4-580.