195 Cal. App. 4th 107
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Grant was convicted at trial of pimping under § 266h(a), assault with a deadly weapon, corporal injury to a cohabitant, and false imprisonment, receiving an aggregate state-prison term of five years.
- The pimping conviction rested on Grant living with and deriving support from Burgundi Selvin’s prostitution earnings.
- Grant challenged only the pimping conviction as violating substantive due process by criminalizing cohabitation with a known prostitute.
- Selvin testified she and Grant lived off her prostitution earnings; Grant controlled the advertisements and access to funds.
- The trial court instructed the jury under § 266h(a) and evidence showed Grant knew Selvin was a prostitute and that the money came from her prostitution earnings.
- The Court held that § 266h(a) is rationally related to suppressing prostitution and affirmed the pimping conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 266h(a) violate substantive due process by criminalizing cohabitation with a known prostitute? | Grant argues the statute unduly restricts personal liberty. | The statute targets commercial prostitution and furthers a legitimate state interest. | No; statute rationally related to a proper state目的. |
| Must knowledge of the source of funds be proven for conviction under § 266h(a)? | Grant argues the People need not prove knowledge of the funds’ source. | Court treats knowledge of source as implied and necessary. | Knowledge of source is implied and evidence here supported knowledge. |
| Is the statute constitutionally overbroad on its face? | Grant seeks facial overbreadth invalidation based on hypothetical applications. | Statute valid as applied and not void for overbreadth. | No facial overbreadth; valid as applied and reasonably related to suppression of prostitution. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Coronado, 90 Cal.App.2d 762 (Cal. App. 1949) (implied knowledge element in pimping may be inferred from conduct)
- People v. Tipton, 124 Cal.App.2d 213 (Cal. App. 1954) (knowledge of source implied defense considerations)
- People v. Mason, 642 P.2d 8 (Colo. 1982) (statutory pimping aims to suppress prostitution; offense design)
- State v. Green, 131 P.2d 411 (Ariz. 1942) (prohibitions to curb public evils may be broad but related to goal)
- Purity Extract Co. v. Lynch, 226 U.S. 192 (U.S. 1912) (legislative power to suppress public evils; reasonableness standard)