Back in August of 2008, the Yolo County DA’s Office was trumpeting this as a case of “Yolo County’s Own ‘To Catch a Predator’ ” which resulted in 40-year-old Todd Robert Dixon of Elk Grove being convicted of pandering, for his actions on December 27, 2007 when he solicited a seventeen-year-old girl in West Sacramento to have sex with him in exchange for money.
Now, just over two years later, the conviction has been thrown out due to insufficient evidence that Mr. Dixon committed that specific charge of pandering, and Mr. Dixon is free and cannot be recharged for this crime.
The Third DCA writes, “The sufficiency of evidence argument raised here is one of law. Does pandering require “simply offering money to someone in exchange for sex,” as the People argue, or does it require more, namely, causing someone to become a prostitute to satisfy the desires of another person, as defendant argues?”
According to the court, “Defendant does not meet the definition of a panderer. He sought to have sex with L.N. and offered her money to persuade her to do so. There is no evidence that he intended to have her become a prostitute for others.”
They conclude, “Unlike the cases the People cite, the evidence here established that defendant offered L.N. money to have sex only with him. As we have explained, under the rationale of Roderigas, supra, 49 Cal. at page 11, defendant’s actions do not make him a panderer.”
The DA’s Office made a huge production of this case back in August of 2008, with a lengthy press release.
According to their version of events, on December 27, 2007, Mr. Dixon called his friend’s seventeen-year-old stepdaughter on her cellular telephone. Mr. Dixon repeatedly asked the seventeen-year-old girl if she wanted to make a “quick, easy $200.”
The Third DCA’s summary events suggests that Mr. Dixon asked the victim if she were alone because “he wanted to discuss something private and personal. He then asked what she was doing for New Year’s Eve.”
The girl replied that she was babysitting her younger brother. Mr. Dixon asked whether she wanted to make a quick, easy $200. She responded, “it depends,” and asked if he wanted her to babysit his children.
Mr. Dixon said that was possible but then started joking about the $200. Mr. Dixon ended the call by saying he would call back when it was “legit.”
According to the DA, The seventeen-year-old girl quickly became concerned Dixon was soliciting her to have sex with him in exchange for money. When she ended the telephone conversation with Dixon, Dixon sent a text message to the seventeen-year-old girl’s cell phone. The text message read, “U with me 1 Night 200 or More.”
The Third DCA adds, she “concluded that defendant was not talking about babysitting and instead was wanting to be alone with her for ‘sexual intercourse or something like that.’ “
The seventeen-year-old girl immediately notified her parents about Dixon’s solicitation in the telephone conversation and text message. Her stepfather notified the West Sacramento Police Department, the DA’s Office wrote.
The West Sacramento Police Department Community Response Team immediately became involved in the investigation.
According to the release, “Sergeant Jason Winger, the supervisor of the team, created a game plan to catch Dixon. Very much like the NBC television show, “To Catch a Predator,” Sergeant Winger directed an undercover officer to use the seventeen-year-old girl’s cell phone to respond to the text message Dixon sent to the seventeen-year-old’s cell phone.”
The DA writes, “Dixon, believing he was corresponding with the seventeen-year-old girl, stated he would get a room at a Motel 6 in West Sacramento. Throughout the evening, Dixon continued to correspond through text messaging with the undercover officer, believing she was the teenage girl. He sent a text message to the girl’s cell phone once he checked into the Motel 6.”
They continue, noting, “When the Community Response Team was in position at the Motel 6, the undercover officer, posing as the seventeen-year-old girl, sent the final text message informing Dixon she had arrived. Much to Dixon’s surprise, when he opened the door to the motel room he saw police officers, not his friend’s seventeen-year-old stepdaughter who he planned to meet and pay money to have sex with.”
Mr. Dixon was arrested, and the officers found $226 in cash in his pocket.
“Ironically,” the DA’s Office notes, “when the officers went inside the motel room they saw Dixon had been watching the NBC television show “To Catch a Predator.’ “
According to the Third DCA, “About 10:00 p.m. the same day, as defendant left room 206 carrying a beer, police stationed at the motel nabbed him. On his person, officers found a cell phone and $226. In the room, officers found beer and a toiletry kit containing ‘anal lube.’ In his truck, they found a rubber sex toy, a photo of a penis, 26 DVDs with legal adult pornography, and a portable DVD player.”
The case was prosecuted by Deputy District Attorney Tiffany Susz, who works in the Special Victims Unit prosecuting child sexual assaults at the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office.
According to Deputy District Attorney Susz, “Fortunately, law enforcement caught Dixon before he victimized this seventeen-year-old girl or another child. We commend the seventeen-year-old girl for coming forward and the West Sacramento Police Department Community Response Team for its immediate response in catching this predator.”
Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig commented, “Cases like this should remind us all that sexual predators like we see on television shows are here in our communities too. Parents, kids and communities need to be aware that technology like the internet and cell phones sometimes become the tools of these types of criminals. Thankfully, the victim in this case did exactly what she was supposed to do when she received the inappropriate text message – she told her parents.”
Unfortunately, it appears that the DA charged this individual with the wrong crime and he is now free.
Discussion
However, we also offer this nuance. The Vanguard spoke to some familiar with this portion of the law. They believe that this crime did constitute a pandering case and that the 3rd DCA went out its way to overturn this by citing an over-100-year-old authority.
No one is quite sure why that is the case, but it may be a message to the DA’s Office to clean up their act or risk more cases getting thrown out.
From our standpoint, if the facts of this case are true as presented by both the DA’s Office and the Third DCA, it appears the defendant did commit a crime and is now free with prejudice. Double jeopardy is in effect and they cannot be charged again.
Our consistent complaint has been that the DA’s Office overcharges defendants on a routine basis, often charging them with laws which were never intended to apply to such cases.
If that is true, then perhaps karma is coming back to haunt the DA’s Office. It is unclear why the DA’s Office in this case did not charge the defendant with charges stemming from soliciting sex from a minor and charges of that sort.
We ought to be a bit careful before going much further on this, because we do not know whether the defendant disputes other facts in evidence. The 3rd DCA writes, “In light of our conclusion, we need not address defendant’s other claims of error.”
Given that, we should not assume that Mr. Dixon indeed committed a crime, although there does not seem much doubt as to that based on the evidence presented.
Nevertheless, we ought to hammer home a critical point here. Many defenders of the DA’s Office have been more concerned with catching criminals than following the strict procedures of the law. However, here is a case where a possible criminal is now going free because the DA’s Office may have charged him with the wrong crime.
We would also be remiss if we did not point out the possible influence of grants. We have seen a number of sexual offense cases that are extremely problematic, starting with the Noori case in which the defendants faced 63 felonies and were acquitted on every one of them by a jury, continuing to the Artz case.
We have noted the DA’s improper use of the Artz case for grant purposes, and we also note an article in the Davis Enterprise from Friday in which the DA’s Office was going into schools to warn students about how to protect themselves from sexual predators and others on the internet.
There is nothing wrong with this kind of educational outreach, but we do note the quote from DA Jeff Reisig, “We were fortunate enough to receive a federal Child Sexual Predator and Internet Crimes against Children grant. The application was very competitive and we were one of the few offices in the state to receive funds. This funding is critical considering the budget issues this county is facing.”
The quote continues, “This grant primarily funds the District Attorney’s Office to conduct forensic analyses on cases involving computers and cell phones. Many of these are cases involving the possession and distribution of child pornography. This grant also allows us to conduct Internet safety training. Usually we concentrate on ‘train the trainer’ sessions, but when possible we really enjoy interacting one-on-one with young people, parents and teachers, informing them about possible dangers on the Internet.”
The problem with the grant is not the educational activities, but the fact that the DA has to earn and justify the grant. The application was in fact very competitive. How competitive? The Vanguard has not received the grant as of yet, but we know that only two jurisdictions in the state were awarded.
What we do know is that in the DA’s Statutory Rape Vertical Prosecution program, they improperly used the Michael Artz case as a factor, along with several other questionable cases.
The Artz case was most telling because it specifically mentions that the purpose of the “SRVP Program is to vertically prosecute adult offenders engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse as defined under PC §261.5. It is not the intent of the SRVP Program to subsidize prosecution of these cases for forcible rape or child molestation cases.”
The Artz case as it was tried was primarily a case about forced sexual contact, and the defendant was acquitted of that charge.
Bottom line, the influence of money weighs largely in these cases, and for whatever reason, sexual assault and statutory rape cases seem to be among the most heavily subsidized by grants and the most problematic class of cases.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
How awful for the young lady and her family. Had the stepfather reacted less temperately and rendered Dixon incapable of further crimes, would the DA have filed the appropriate charge? As discussed here many times before, Reisig’s actions call into question both his prosecutorial competence and ethics.
dmg: “The problem with the grant is not the educational activities, but the fact that the DA has to earn and justify the grant.”
For the life of me, I cannot figure out why anyone would have a problem w the DA’s office obtaining grant money to educate teens on the dangers of internet predation…
dmg: “What we do know is that in the DA’s Statutory Rape Vertical Prosecution program, they improperly used the Michael Artz case as a factor, along with several other questionable cases.”
The Artz case is still on appeal – we don’t know what the outcome will be…
dmg: “Unfortunately, it appears that the DA charged this individual with the wrong crime and he is now free.”
If this was the only evidence the DA’s office had on Dixon (text message asking for sex in exchange for $200), I am puzzled why the DA went after the pandering charge, instead of just plain soliciting to have sex w a minor. Is it possible there was other evidence that was not admitted?
Elaine:
You will note I said: “There is nothing wrong with this kind of educational outreach,”
My concern is what else the grant funds (it’s not exclusively an educational grant) and what the DA had to do to get that money.
“The Artz case is still on appeal – we don’t know what the outcome will be… “
No the main charge in the Artz case was thrown out. There has been no appeal in the Artz case, he has yet to even been sentenced.
“If this was the only evidence the DA’s office had on Dixon (text message asking for sex in exchange for $200), I am puzzled why the DA went after the pandering charge, instead of just plain soliciting to have sex w a minor.”
Me too.
“Is it possible there was other evidence that was not admitted?”
I don’t know. But both the DA and DCA describe the incident in the same light, so who knows. I think the guy was trying to have sex with her, not turn her into a prostitute.
The result indicates the presiding judge did not provide adequate oversight – so the name of the judge should be part of the discussion. The process would work better if the Yolo judges were interested in exerting more control over the DA.
Attempted unlawful sex with a minor (PC 664/261.5) would have been an appropriate charge under the facts, but does not require registration as a sex offender. I can agree that this offender is one for which registration should be sought if legally possible on the facts of the case. Unfortunately, sometimes the crime does not fit into that category, even if the prosecutor “knows” the offender should be on a Megan’s law website.
One rule I have always exercised in filing and plea bargaining cases is that the facts MUST fit within the charges. Over the course of my career, I have taken a lot of heat from defense, courts and my supervising attorneys for insisting on this and not bending the facts into a pretzel to fit some sought after result. Still, it has never steered me wrong.
I would like to see the case cite for the case to which Elaine refers. Perhaps the AG will seek to overturn this 3rd DCA opinion at the Cal. Supreme Court level.
As a published opinion, however, this case now carries precedential authority for all jurisdictions in the 3rd DCA. That harms many other cases. Expect that others with similar (yet more egregious) facts and convictions will now seek to have them overturned on this new state of the law.
Bad facts, poor application of existing law (both symptoms of weak lawyering) by the party that brings a case results in bad law (appellate decisions that harm many others).
In this case, the result is that this offender cannot be prosecuted again on these facts under CA law. He is conviction-free, unless the 3rd DCA is overturned by the Cal. Supreme Court. A different recourse could be a federal charge if the feds were interested – they can still prosecute him.
Based on the facts, I can see the value in prosecuting him and labeling him a sex offender if legally possible, but at present, Yolo County, and CA, have no way to do that.
dmg: “No the main charge in the Artz case was thrown out. There has been no appeal in the Artz case, he has yet to even been sentenced.”
I thought his attorney said she was going to appeal?
Alphonso: “The result indicates the presiding judge did not provide adequate oversight – so the name of the judge should be part of the discussion. The process would work better if the Yolo judges were interested in exerting more control over the DA.”
Now that is an interesting point…
ERM: “Is it possible there was other evidence that was not admitted?”
dmg: “I don’t know. But both the DA and DCA describe the incident in the same light, so who knows. I think the guy was trying to have sex with her, not turn her into a prostitute.”
It is the only reason I can think of that the DA would charge “pandering”, is if there was some other evidence that turned out not to be admissable. I’m thinking solicitations of other girls, w the theory Dixon was trying to build a “stable” of girls? Pure speculation on my part, but otherwise it makes no sense to me to charge “pandering” in this case…
Alphonso: “The result indicates the presiding judge did not provide adequate oversight – so the name of the judge should be part of the discussion. The process would work better if the Yolo judges were interested in exerting more control over the DA.”
Thinking on it some more, there are two possible scenarios here: 1) even the judge thought the evidence showed pandering, so it was not unreasonable for the DA to do what he did; 2) the judge was just backing the DA as per usual and not truly careful about applying the law. Interesting conundrum that I don’t think any of us knows the answer to… other than we know our court system is far from perfect…
Judge David Rosenberg was the judge on this trail. You can check the appellate record at the following site.
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/trialCourt.cfm?dist=3&doc_id=1370904&doc_no=C059174
In the previous comment, I meant David Rosenberg was the judge on this trial not trail.
FAI: “Judge David Rosenberg was the judge on this trail. You can check the appellate record at the following site.”
It appears Warriner was the judge in the case. After having read the appellate opinion, I think I can understand better where the DA and the trial court judge were coming from. It appears they may have believed that Dixon’s behavior, by soliciting sex from the victim in a hotel room, was tantamount to encouraging her into a life of prostitution (“U with me, 1 night, $200 or more…Motel 6 rm 206”). THE STATUTES THEMSELVES ARE NOT CLEAR ON THIS POINT.
From the appellate opinion: “The sufficiency of evidence argument raised here is one of law. Does pandering require “simply offering money to someone in exchange for sex,” as the People argue, or does it require more, namely, causing someone to become a prostitute to satisfy the desires of another person, as defendant argues?
The statute on pandering is silent on this issue. (CALCRIM No. 1151.) In relevant part, it states that a person who “[b]y promises, threats, violence, or by any device or scheme causes, induces, persuades or encourages another person to become a prostitute” is guilty of pandering. (§ 266i, subd. (a)(2).)
The instruction on pandering is similarly silent. As was given here, it requires that (1) “The defendant used promises or any device or scheme to encourage L.N. to become a prostitute”; (2) “The defendant intended to influence L.N. to be a prostitute”; and (3) “L.N. was over the age of 16 at the time the defendant acted.” It defines prostitute as “a person who engages in sexual intercourse or any lewd act with another person in exchange for money.”
However, case law from California‟s Supreme Court informs the issue. (Roderigas, supra, 49 Cal. at p. 11.)…”
I think there was an honest and possibly understandable mistake made here, bc the statutes themselves were not that clear, as often happens. A fix probably needs to be made at the legislative level. Unfortunately the mistake will let a perp go free, a very undesirable if unintentional outcome.
Is there some reason that the D.A. could not have charged the defendant with both pandering and soliciting a minor. I have always beleived that if the greater charge did not stick, that the lesser charge would still hold. Am I off base here?
Roger Bockrath,
What you are talking about is considered overcharging in this web site.
rb: “Is there some reason that the D.A. could not have charged the defendant with both pandering and soliciting a minor. I have always beleived that if the greater charge did not stick, that the lesser charge would still hold. Am I off base here?”
I am assuming “pandering” is the more serious offense of the lesser included offense of “soliciting for sex”. If this is the case, then I think the information below answers your question:
From Wikipedia: “Under the merger doctrine as this term is used in criminal law, lesser included offenses generally merge into the greater offense. Therefore, a person who commits a robbery can not be convicted of both the robbery and the larceny that was part of it.
Solicitation to commit a crime and attempt to commit a crime, although not strictly speaking lesser included offenses, merge into the completed crime. As an important exception, the crime of conspiracy does not merge into the completed crime. Even if any states were to eliminate the doctrine, a conviction for both an offense and any of its lesser-included offenses would not withstand scrutiny under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932).”
rb: “Is there some reason that the D.A. could not have charged the defendant with both pandering and soliciting a minor. I have always beleived that if the greater charge did not stick, that the lesser charge would still hold. Am I off base here?”
Let me further clarify here. The jury in the trial court could have found Dixon guilty of soliciting, a lesser charge, even tho charged w pandering. But that is not what happened here. The jury convicted Dixon of the more serious charge of pandering, and it is on the pandering charge that the trial court had to withstand an appeal. The problem is the statutes on pandering are silent as to whether soliciting for sex is enough to come within the purview of the legislative law on pandering – but case law is more explicit. Obviously the statutes on pandering were poorly drawn up, and need correction to come into line w very old case law. I honestly don’t think the judge or DA were at fault here, but the legislature was guilty of poor drafting language – just my opinion from reading the appellate ruling…
“What you are talking about is considered overcharging in this web site.”
Actually charging him with the charge that was thrown out was overcharging.
dmg: “Actually charging him with the charge that was thrown out was overcharging.”
We don’t know that yet. Look at Pat Lenzi’s discussion: “I would like to see the case cite for the case to which Elaine refers. Perhaps the AG will seek to overturn this 3rd DCA opinion at the Cal. Supreme Court level.
As a published opinion, however, this case now carries precedential authority for all jurisdictions in the 3rd DCA. That harms many other cases. Expect that others with similar (yet more egregious) facts and convictions will now seek to have them overturned on this new state of the law.”
Just on a gut level, can’t you visualize that Dixon was grooming this girl for prostitution?
“Just on a gut level, can’t you visualize that Dixon was grooming this girl for prostitution?”
Not really, he was trying to take the easy road to getting some teen girl to have sex with him.
dmg: “Not really, he was trying to take the easy road to getting some teen girl to have sex with him.”
Sex w him for pay, not just sex w him, and in a motel room. What I find amazing is why he thought she would be the least bit receptive knowing who he was…
I don’t disagree on that, but I don’t see that this was some move to turn her to prostitution. I agree its a crime, I just don’t agree it’s that crime.
If you offer to pay someone for sex, whether they accept or not, aren’t you trying to turn them into a prostitute?
Only if you believe that one becomes a prostitute based on a single action rather than a series of actions. I think he was more likely trying to have sex, not attempting to turn her into a prostitute. That’s apparently how the appellate court saw it as well.
So would your opinion be that a woman who attempts to engage in prostitution for the first time can’t be charged as a prostitute because we don’t know it one act will turn her into a prostitute?
No, in my opinion you would have to prove intent was to turn her into a prostitute rather than simply procure sexual favors from her.
Elaine: “I am assuming “pandering” is the more serious offense of the lesser included offense of “soliciting for sex”.” That’s a big assumption.
The lesser included for pandering would be attempted pimping, PC 664 266h, as it appears under CalCrim Jury Instruction 1150. You spent all of that time looking up the caselaw, but curiously did not look up your major assumption which was what the lesser included would have been.
It seems like this is the most appropriate penalty under the law, note that it was in effect in 2007:
[quote]Section 288.3. (Added November 7, 2006, by initiative Proposition 83, Sec. 6.)
Cite as: Cal. Penal Code §288.3.
(a)Every person who contacts or communicates with a minor, or attempts to contact or communicate with a minor, who knows or reasonably should know that the person is a minor, with intent to commit an offense specified in Section 207, 209, 261, 264.1, 273a, 286, 288, 288a, 288.2, 289, 311.1, 311.2, 311.4 or 311.11 involving the minor shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for the term prescribed for an attempt to commit the intended offense.
(b)As used in this section, “contacts or communicates with” shall include direct and indirect contact or communication that may be achieved personally or by use of an agent or agency, any print medium, any postal service, a common carrier or communication common carrier, any electronic communications system, or any telecommunications, wire, computer, or radio communications device or system.
(c)A person convicted of a violation of subdivision (a) who has previously been convicted of a violation of subdivision (a) shall be punished by an additional and consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for five years. [/quote]
This is what Artz was charged with, but he was an 18 year contacting a 16 year old, in this case it was a 40 year old with a 17 year old. Not sure why the DA did not charge him with this.
[i]”The lesser included for pandering would be attempted [b]pimping[/b], PC 664 266h, as it appears under CalCrim Jury Instruction 1150.”[/i]
I was curious where we got the word [i]pimp[/i]. I don’t recall hearing it used very often as a child growing up in Davis in the 1960s and ’70s. I think “gangster rap” popularized it in the late 1980s; and then the TV show, “Pimp My Ride” took it into the mainstream, especially as a verb.
Here is what I found: [quote]1607, perhaps from M.Fr. pimper “to dress elegantly” (16c.), prp. of pimpant “alluring in dress, seductive.” Weekley suggests M.Fr. pimpreneau, defined in Cotgrave (1611) as “a knave, rascall, varlet, scoundrell.” The word also means “informer, stool pigeon” in Australia and New Zealand and in S.Africa, where by early 1960s it existed in Swahili form impimpsi. The verb is attested from 1636. [/quote]
yet another case over-turned by Mr. Wonderful DA Reisig. You will not see this in the Sac Bee and will not see in the Daily Dem, why, they only print what the DA tells them.
What a disservice to the people.
All the DA lovers on the Dem will still be posting, the DA has never done anything wrong and prove it and show me a case that has been overturned.
I wish you had a running list of all the lying and crooked acts the DA has been involved in, like when he hid the gun from the jury and the case got over turned, like when he tried to hide the gang injunction and it got over turned, like when he tried to hide evidence in a murder trial and two senior detectives turned him in, like when he refused to investigate the shooting and killing of a kid on a bridge who was shot in the back, like the DA caused the Bee to do retractions since he lied in his press releases, the list keeps getting lost over time – a nice permanent log posted and updated would help people that don’t know how long the list is or can’t keep up with the questionable history of Reisig, would be nice to see in a list with links to articles, case cites, DA false press releases, etc…
this would also be a nice reference for those that can’t bring themselves to say that DA Reisig ever does anything wrong and it would stop the idiot posters who just want to claim you make things up here.
I don’t think there are many people who would say the DA has NEVER done anything wrong. The difference is perspective. In an office that has thousands upon thousands of criminal complaints flow through the office annually what are the odds that they will be 100% correct on everything. Obviously the odds are low. The question to ask is if these error’s, wrongs, or missteps, are intentional and meant to intentionally harm someone. This isn’t the first nor the last case to be overturned. Cases and court decisions are regularly overturned. It is how our judicial system is intended to work.
The real issue in this case charging the wrong section; not some evil deed as represented by Mr Rabbit. Even DG agrees that a crime was committed. In this case the court disagreed with the DA’s interpretation of the law. Not the first time the DCA has disagreed with a DA and it wont be the last.
I tend to agree it is not an “evil deed” per se. But I would put it on one of the pillars of my complaint against the DA’s office, which is overreaching on charges that really should not be sustained in court.
“The question to ask is if these error’s, wrongs, or missteps, are intentional and meant to intentionally harm someone.”
I think the former point is a good point. The intentionally harm someone point less so. There is a mentality that the bad people deserve whatever they get and they don’t seem to mind how they get them. I think in that zeal there are things lost. There are several cases where I think the wrong person was charged with the crime and in those cases it was a matter of finding someone to punish. Were they intentionally harming the person charged? I don’t think so. But I’m not sure that really excuses their errors. It’s like a doctor making errors, if you do something wrong in surgery, you put people’s lives in danger. It may not be intentional, but that doesn’t make one a good doctor.
The statute for pandering reads “prostitute”. Nowhere does it say prositute for others or turn someone into a prostitute. Nowhere does it say that the accused act must have the intent to make this 17 year old girl a prostitute for a week, a year, or life. According to the plain wording of the statute (the rule of judicial interpretation) this 40 year old man offered to pay for sex—that fulfills the statutory definition of pandering. He sought the services of the 17 year old as a prostitute for him. I cannot see how this is not pandering. The fact that the DCA had to reach back to the 1800’s to find a case (and the wording from that case was dictum, not the holding) means, to me, that something else is going on here. I don’t know what it is because I cannot read minds, but I can say it pleases me.
The only oversight for Reisig is the Court of Appeal. If his convictions get overturned he will stop misbehaving.
kd: “The statute for pandering reads “prostitute”. Nowhere does it say prositute for others or turn someone into a prostitute. Nowhere does it say that the accused act must have the intent to make this 17 year old girl a prostitute for a week, a year, or life. According to the plain wording of the statute (the rule of judicial interpretation) this 40 year old man offered to pay for sex—that fulfills the statutory definition of pandering. He sought the services of the 17 year old as a prostitute for him. I cannot see how this is not pandering. The fact that the DCA had to reach back to the 1800’s to find a case (and the wording from that case was dictum, not the holding) means, to me, that something else is going on here.”
Again, this just reinforces my belief that the statute itself does not comport w case law, and needs to be updated.
dmg: “I don’t disagree on that, but I don’t see that this was some move to turn her to prostitution. I agree its a crime, I just don’t agree it’s that crime.”
Encouraging a child to turn a trick for money is not encouraging the child towards prostitution? Really? With all due respect, what alternate universe are you living on? (Sorry, but I just don’t get where you are coming from …)
dmg: “The lesser included for pandering would be attempted pimping, PC 664 266h, as it appears under CalCrim Jury Instruction 1150….I tend to agree it is not an “evil deed” per se. But I would put it on one of the pillars of my complaint against the DA’s office, which is overreaching on charges that really should not be sustained in court.”
How is it “overreaching” to charge incorrectly – bc the statutes are not clear on pandering, which even the appellate court admitted is the case?