*1 case dismissed. and the reversed judgment C.J., Stafford, Wright, Rosellini, Brach- Utter, JJ., concur. Dolliver, Hicks, Williams, tenbach, May 17,1979.] En Banc. 45489. [No. Joseph Washington, Respondent, Yancy, Jr., Appellant. *2 Seattle-King County Shelley Stark
Robert Olson and Defender, appellant. Public and J. Prosecuting Attorney, Bayley, T.
Christopher Pechman, Deputies, J. Hunt Marsha Robin respondent. K. Ford on behalf of Timothy Withey E.
Michael Union, curiae. amici Civil Liberties American of violat- guilty found J. The Rosellini, 9A.88.070(l)(b), which provides: RCW ing in the (1) promoting prostitution person A knowingly: if he degree first of a
(b) from Advances old. years eighteen less in part: provides
RCW 9A.88.060 in RCW applicable definitions are following 9A.88.090: through 9A.88.070
(2) "profits A from from "Profits if, receiv- other than as a acting prostitution" rendered personally ing compensation services, property or other accepts or receives any to an pursuant person whereby or is to participates age two under the girls The evidence showed that invi- with the at his living appellant, while a hotel room tation, him prostitution, turned over to of the three. While spent living expenses which he on the "earnings" he testified his own that he contributed thievery during arrangement the time this was con- ducted, from which could infer there was evidence part girls that at least a of the was used for his benefit. is first contended that is void for cites
vagueness.
penal
the rule that a
conduct,
proscribed
sufficient notice of the
so
provide
required
speculate
prohib
that one is not
as what
*3
Miller,
(1975).
ited. Bellevue v.
539,
P.2d
85
536
603
A
if
be found invalid
it is couched
terms so
vague
intelligence
necessarily
that men of common
must
Seattle
guess
meaning
at its
and differ as to its
application.
Drew,
v.
405,
522,
P.2d
70 Wn.2d
423
The appellant argues statutory language vague profiting because it includes within the definition of "promoting" prostitution. The definitions Collegiate found in Webster's Seventh New Dic tionary, it within says, enough bring are not broad dic dictionary "promoting."1 definition of Neither Dictionary, Third New International tionary nor Webster's uses, all generally purports which this court enumerate 1 Dictionary promote, growth or '. . . to contribute to the "Webster's defines (as (b) enterprise) being: help bring . prosperity into launch . . of: further an syn: . . . see advance.' may the activities which tend to promote given aim enterprise. legislature The has found that profiting promote tends to it. We are offered no showing finding is without foundation. theory The to be appears legislature strictly to dictionary authority adhere definitions. No proposition. contrary, cited such a On the we have recently recognized legisla- and followed the rule that word, may giving meaning ture define a it a broader Buchanan, ordinarily the one it carries. Seattle v. 90 Wn.2d (1978). P.2d statutory definition is couched in simple lan readily guage by ordinary understandable intel ligence. is that definition which must his conduct. guide Buchanan, pointed supra, vague As we out Seattle may open ness which inhere the use of a term which is interpretations may various be corrected a legislative definition which it a gives precise meaning. more That function legislature performed which the here. The "promoting prostitution" might term indeed have been open to attack for had the vagueness, pre cisely defined what conduct it intended to include within its meaning. "agree- further contends the words 9A.88.060(2),
ment or as used RCW are understanding," unconstitutionally they do not vague specify because whether must be formal. "understanding," The word as defined brief, among has its various definitions the one which is appropriate agreement. here —that an informal intent, words used which we legislature expressed dictionary 'profits' specific: "All T. A definitions of are valuable return: *4 gain expenditure 2.: or of trans- The excess of returns over a transaction series actions; price specif: selling goods of over their costs 3.: Net excess profit given year usually given period of 4.: The ratio of for a to income time compensation capital or to of the amount of invested the value sales 5.: assumption enterprise accruing entrepreneurs . .'" of risk in business . to Appellant, at 15-16. Brief proof of readily perceivable think to be would —that of this element sufficient to establish informal is agreement offense. is overbroad statute suggests next association, by guaranteed his freedom impinges State, Blondheim 84 Wn.2d He cites First Amendment. (1975), we statute P.2d where said may prohibit constitu broadly which is drawn so behavior, tionally protected activity, unprotected as well as It process suggested due of law. is denies substantive pursuits who render services persons legitimate engaged paid prostitute's for them out of the to a and are prostitute and unwit person with a earnings, living or a could be of his her tingly receiving the benefit violating provision. found to open do not find the statute this construction. We is hypothesized none the situations whereby is agreement there an to With proceeds participate services, rendering agreement to is regard to him paid for his services. is immaterial is be money may agree- be. If there is an what the source of the paid out whereby promise he exacts a that he be ment activity, his no proceeds conduct is innocent, con- hardly be heard to claim longer can respect per- The same is true with protection. stitutional they accept prostitute. with a Unless sons to an pursuant of that person's vio- proceeds, those there no lation. did not intend this argued
It is next promoter, appel- such as reach an amateur lant, only large enterprises. commercial but was aimed at a limitation imposing such provision
No synopsis and that a upon scope suggested cited. It Criminal Jus- Washington commentary found Training Commission, Criminal Code Revised Training tice & Golob edited G. (compiled and Seminar Manual *5 (1976)) G. Mooney supports this view. While we think the appellant's doubtful, interpretation is somewhat we will Nevertheless, assume it is correct. the comment reflects nothing more personal opinions than the lawyers of the two volume, who compiled they the and modestly properly any disclaim "intent or in purpose to offer depth an 'law style analysis review' of each and section every of law (the title). in contained The document simply offered as a 'basis for analysis.'" No in authorities are cited connec- 9A.88.060(2), tion the comment on RCW nor does it purport any interpret specific language the act but rather to state what the have writers conceive to been the purpose of the act. statute,
There nothing the language the which we discern, can limits application large commercial enterprises; and the appellant cites no legislative history which would substantiate his claim with respect to its intent. Each of the sections involved "any here refers to person." RCW gives 9A.04.110 the word "person" the usual legal definition including "any within its meaning natural and, relevant, where corporation, stock joint asso- ciation, or unincorporated association". If the statute was meant the meaning suggested by have narrow the act, intention not appellant, expressed was in the it tois the statute which we must look to find the legisla- purpose. tive
It is next not contended that was intended to punish appellant's position unless he was in supported prostitute. fact He further contends that the evidence did not show such support, received since, by testimony, his contributed more to expenses menage prosti- than was derived from tution, petty thievery. his contributions derived from require proof person charged does prostitute. proof What supported requires was participated prostitute's earnings. that he There was testimony in girls placed undenied this case that the two appellant's kept their hands and it, returning only small spent possession appears sundries. purchase sums to them for contribution, the was earnings, all of as could reason- expenses. required were were not sufficient "earnings" find that ably during he lived style him in which support part least of time. That at some period a reasonable was also spent two his benefit girls inference. 251.2(4) ALI Model Penal Code cites § *6 Draft), a that presumption which creates
(May 1962 Final is "knowingly of a who lives off the one conclu- the From this derives promoting 9A.88.070(l)(b) was such as RCW sion that a statute this only supported by to if accused was apply intended prostitution. a arises presumption
The fact that under the code such is no prostitute, if is of only supported adopt fit here. The did not see to legislature relevance It to offense. provisions respect Model Code Penal that the defend- express requirement proof contains no pun- promoting prostitution. ant knew he was section knowledge in is With implicit. ishes conduct which conduct, of an respect appellant's requires proof to in participate that he would agreement understanding We are not shown provision. enact power was without to such a irrelevant, it, interpreting the Model Penal Code nature. provisions being of different only roommate contends that he was it is true that sharing girls. with the two While expenses from the activities great profits did not derive to was testimony given at the trial sufficient girls, these live in his that he invited them to jury finding support they engage would with the hotel room him, to over and would turn their mutual benefit. he would for their spend thereafter, to find further entitled was until arrests, the time the three together lived accordance with such agreement and understanding.
While the evidence showed the appellant to be more of an opportunist than an entrepreneur, it also showed minors, was to willing take advantage years younger himself, and to encourage pursuit them a which the legislature has found to be detrimental to their welfare and further, public, to participate the pro- conduct, ceeds His pursuit. as evidenced tes- timony, contemplation and, was within the of the statute not being of a nature protection, warrant constitutional subject punishment to the prescribed.
Error
assigned
the refusal
anof
instruction that
it was the
theory
the case that he did not
merely
advance
but
associated with a prosti
tute,
and that
there was no
or understanding
whereby he would
proceeds of prosti
proposed
tutes. This
instruction did
expound any legal
not
theory but
arguments
rather embodied the factual
which
counsel would make
not
jury.
suggested
given,
that under
the instructions
counsel was
points.
case,
to argue
unable
these
That
it was
Dana,
proposed
error
refuse the
instruction. State
(1968).
Stafford, i.e., 9A.88.070(l)(b), violating RCW one who majority rec- prostitution." "advances statutory ognized, quite could properly, charge definition and for rea- statutory stand without further this 9A.88.060(2) son to RCW of "profits turned a definition Unfortunately search stopped word, key short of a definition of the A cur- "prostitution". briefs, sory and the reading applicable statutes brief, discloses that including an amicus in RCW 9A.88.030. "prostitution" defined statutory definition constitutionally sound Absent under RCW 9A.88- charge brought "prostitution" nowe .070(1)(b) because vagueness as void fall short, in this state. common-law definition longer have a 9A.88.070(l)(b) wholly constitutionality of RCW constitutionality, upon the constitution- for its dependent, RCW 9A.88.030. "prostitution" definition ality (1979) Zuanich, P.2d 1314 meets (defining "prostitution") RCW 9A.88.030 holds that prior notice of adequate the constitutional standards criminal penalty. one to subject conduct which incorrectly. However, the issue resolved the dissent repeating will be served purpose No useful However, forth at the reasons set in Zuanich at 68. page I case as therein, compelled to dissent am length well. Stafford,
Utter, C.J., J. concurs with 11, 1979. July Reconsideration denied