*1 fit the crime should both individual.” Hildebrand, Cupples,
(Iowa 1979) (quoting presentence record has
investigation reveal that and that most history of criminal conduct unfavorably on him.
of the factors reflect by the
We find no abuse of discretion imposing sentence
court the maximum by law.
allowed reviewed all de- thoroughly
We have no merit contentions and find
fendant’s therefore assignments
his af- error. of the trial
firm the and sentence McCORMICK, except Justices concur
All specially. who concurs (concurring special- Judge
ly)- all of
I concur result and IA.
opinion except the basis of division I the legislature’s
would hold that alternative
use of the word in section 725.3
authorizes conviction of with- proof
out not alone so.
word does
STATE LEE, Appellant.
See
I. and overbreadth. Section 725.3, Code, provides pertinent part: The in person persuades “A arranges for prostitute, ... to become a such having previously engaged in prostitution, . .. commits a class felo- ‘D’ ny.” The trial charged information that day “on or about 27th August, in County and Polk persuade arrange Iowa and for Debbie Govi she not having previously engaged prostitution.” in Prior unsuccessfully defendant charge moved have the on the dismissed ground vague that is over- and broad, in violation of the fourteenth amend- to the United States Constitution. Robert J. Kromminga, Des for A. Overbreadth. is if attempts gov overbroad achieve Lona Han- ernmental control prevent sen, Atty. Gen., Johnston, Asst. Dan Polk constitutionally subject state County Atty., Hansen, and Michael E. regulation by sweep means which unneces Atty., Polk County for sarily broadly thereby and invade the area Willis, protected by REYNOLDSON, freedoms.” State v. and McGIVERIN, (Iowa 1974); LARSON, see Miller and SCHULTZ, Commission, Estate JJ. Real (Iowa 1979). Although
SCHULTZ, Justice.
alleges that section 725.3 is unconstitution
overbroad,
ally
specify
she does not
how it
Defendant,
Lee, appeals
during
is
overbroad and did not
so
from her
conviction
pan-
verdict of
pretrial
proceeding on the motion
dis
725.3,
in
violation of section
The
challenges
miss. Constitutional
Code.
(1)
She contends:
the trial court
Willis,
specific.
Defendant tried Gilbert cause fail to Williams, Jr., Mitchell intelligence whose conviction fair notice of the for- pimping 725.2, in violation of section bidden and the statute therefore encour- Code, ages arbitrary violation of section and erratic arrests and con- 725.3, Code, today. we also affirmed victions. prostitution actually vagueness es occur. Wil- is well
The test
liams,
at 49.
tablished: A
is void for
315N.W.2d
process
clause of the four
under
due
Hashimoto,
People v.
Cal.
requires
if it
teenth amendment
“forbids
(1976),
App.3d
stat
doing
of an act in
so
per
procuring
ute
prohibited
necessari
men of common
*3
purpose of
and in
prostitution
son for the
ly guess
meaning
at
as to its
its
differ
encouraging
ducing, persuading,
Connally v.
application.”
General Con
prostitute
was chal
to become
391,
Co.,
385,
126,
struction
269 U.S.
46 S.Ct.
unconstitutionally vague.
lenged
being
as
127,
322,
(1926).
penal
70
328
L.Ed.
upheld
Appeals
the
California
ordinary
statute
of
in
statute,
“procuring,
finding that
telligence
warning of
the
prohibit
fair
what is
and,
ed,
capable
persuading,
encouraging”
were
arbitrary
order
avoid
enforcement,
provide
precise
it
the
discriminatory
of
and that
definition
explicit
apply
being
standard for those who
it.”
reasonably susceptible
of
in
not
Pilcher,
348,
(Iowa
v.
242 N.W.2d
terpreted
pan
State
353
than
cover
other
1976).
A statute is not
867,
dering.
Id. at
126
850.1
at
meaning
if the
of the “words used
pro
We
likewise conclude that section
fairly
can be
ascertained
reference to
understanding
ordinary
people
vides
of
statutes,
judicial
similar
other
determina
determining
standards for
the
ascertainable
tions,
law,
the
reference to
common
to the
“per
prohibits.
conduct
it
The terms
dictionary, or if the words themselves have
common words
suades” and
generally
a common
accepted
mean
gives
easily
that are
defined. The
ing.”
(quoting
Id.
v.
171
prohibits
warning
fair
that it
affirmative
521,
denied,
527
cert.
designed
acts
for or induce
orchestrate
937,
1837,
398
26
U.S.
90 S.Ct.
L.Ed.2d 268
prostitution.
practice
Sufficiency
II.
of the evidence and
support
In
vagueness allegation,
of her
entrapment. Defendant maintains that in
defining pan-
defendant cites hornbook law
pandering
to be
of
order for her
convicted
it
paid procurement
as the
of an indi-
police
was necessary for the undercover
vidual for the
of
She
agent
actually
prostitute.
become a
She
argues that if section 725.3 is not construed
undisputed
it is
that the
contends
since
require
actually
an individual to
agent
engage
prostitu
not
of
did
in an act
impossible
people
will
engen
evidence
of
gauge
their con-
der
erred
issue and the trial court
police
duct and
will be
make
allowed to
ver
overruling her motion for a directed
disagree.
random
selective arrests. We
act
In
we held that an
of
dict.
Williams
not
purport
725.3 does
Section
of
prostitution is not an element
actual
requirement
paid procure
establish a
offense
50.
315 N.W.2d at
pandering.
lexicogra
ment. The legislature is its own
Accordingly, we find no error.
Robbins,
pher in defining crimes. State v.
argues that the con
Secondly,
(Iowa 1977).
257 N.W.2d
And al
though
agent
duct of the undercover
constituted
not
con
were
confronted with a
challenge
entrapment
stitutional
as a matter of law. Our hold
to section 725.3 in the
appeal by
codefendant,
ing
agent’s
we held
in Williams
defendant’s
,
legislature
that the
did not
the terms
entrapment
intend
N.W.2d at
constitute
“arranges” to require
dispositive of this issue.
(1973);
Similarly,
prostitution
Md.App.
A.2d 634
statutes
jurisdictions prohibiting “soliciting
Armstrong,
in other
v.
282 Minn.
Willmott,
prostitution”
(1968); People
have withstood
chal-
67 Misc.2d
Detroit,
lenges. See,
(1971).
e.g., Morgan
City
All Justices concur
J., who concurs specially. spe- (concurring Justice
cially).
I concur in the and all result
opinion except the basis of division IB.
view dictionary meaning of the of the word case,
“arranges” quoted companion *4 N.W.2d 50 plainly proscribes
conduct with which this defendant was
charged. Harrington,
Charles L. Des Gen., Atty. STATE of and Michael Jordan, CASTILLO, Appellant. Edmundo Fuentes REYNOLDSON, McCORMICK, McGIVERIN, LARSON, and SCHULTZ, JJ. LARSON, Justice. appeals
Edmundo Castillo from convic- robbery. second-degree tions of assault and presented appeal: Two issues are on allowing whether trial court erred in after the defendant intro- exculpatory portions discovery duced of a deposition, inculpatory por- introduce it; tions of whether the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm. reasonably could have found the
following facts: The defendant and three juvenile companions high approached two students, school Kessler John James Elder, city park parking West near lot in Liberty. One of the was with a four armed wrench; crescent head, nylon stocking wearing a over his