Defendant's conviction for pandering reversed
People v. Dixon, C060804, concerned a challenge to a conviction of defendant for pandering, based on a text message he sent to a minor that appeared to be soliciting sex for money. In reversing the conviction, the court held that the California's Supreme Court has explained that a panderer is one who procures the gratification of the passion of lewdness for another, and here, there was no evidence of that in this case.
People v. Dixon, C060804, concerned a challenge to a conviction of defendant for pandering, based on a text message he sent to a minor that appeared to be soliciting sex for money. In reversing the conviction, the court held that the California's Supreme Court has explained that a panderer is one who procures the gratification of the passion of lewdness for another, and here, there was no evidence of that in this case.
As the court wrote: "The "recognized meaning" of procure "refers to the
act of a person 'who procures the gratification of the passion of
lewdness for another.' This is its distinctive signification, as
uniformly understood and applied. In so recognizing, Rodriguez
specifically rejected the People's argument that, because a seducer is a
person who prevails upon a female...to have illicit carnal connection
with himself, he is thereby brought within the mere words of the
statute, and so made liable to the punishment it inflicts. The Supreme
Court stated, "this view cannot be maintained by any rile of fair
interpretation.""
Related Link:
Related Link:
- Read the Full Decision in People v. Dixon, C060804
ShareThis
