191 Cal. App. 4th 1154
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Dixon was convicted of pandering under Cal. Penal Code § 266i, subd. (a)(2).
- The conviction arose from a text Dixon sent to 17-year-old L.N.: “U with me, 1 night, $200 or more.”
- Issue presented: whether offering money for sex alone suffices to prove pandering.
- California Supreme Court precedent defines pandering as procuring gratification of lewdness for another.
- The appellate court reversed, finding no evidence Dixon intended to cause L.N. to become a prostitute for others.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does pandering require more than offering money for sex? | People argued pandering can be proved by offering payment for sex. | Dixon contends pandering requires causing another to become a prostitute for others. | Pandering requires causing another to become a prostitute for others; not satisfied here. |
| Was the evidence sufficient to prove pandering under Roderigas? | People rely on broad pandering standards to include offers of money for sex. | Dixon did not intend to procure a prostitute for others; only to have sex with L.N. | Evidence insufficient; conviction reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Roderigas, 49 Cal. 9 (Cal. 1874) (procure meaning: gratification of lewdness for another)
- Mathews v. Superior Court, 119 Cal.App.3d 309 (Cal. App. 1981) (writ prohibition; statutory gap in § 266)
- Dyer v. Superior Court, 56 Cal.App.4th 61 (Cal. App. 1997) (persuasive authority applying Roderigas logic)
- People v. Mathis, 173 Cal.App.3d 1251 (Cal. App. 1985) (sufficiency; error in jury instruction on procuring)
- People v. Patton, 63 Cal.App.3d 211 (Cal. App. 1976) (pandering scope and definitions)