In pandering (Pen. Code, § 266i, subd. (a)(1)) prosecution, trial court did not err by refusing defense’s proposed modifications to CALCRIM No. 1151 based on People v. Zambia (2011) 51 Cal.4th 965. Chatman was found guilty of pimping and pandering in violation of section 266i, subdivision (a)(1). On appeal, he argued the trial court erred by refusing a modified instruction on pandering based on People v. Zambia, and counsel was ineffective for failing to request further modifications. Held: Affirmed. A person violates section 266i, subdivision (a)(1) when he procures another person for the purpose of prostitution. Chatman argued that, if the pandering involves a person who is already engaged in prosecution, Zambia requires a change in the prostitute’s business model or the establishment of new working relationships in the trade as a result of the panderer’s involvement. But the court in Zambia analyzed section 266i, subdivision (a)(2) and focused on the meaning of “to become a prostitute,” which is not an element of pandering under subdivision (a)(1). The Court of Appeal concluded that Zambia’s analysis of what it means to become a prostitute is inapplicable to a subdivision (a)(1) prosecution. However, the trial court instructed the jury with CALCRIM No. 1151, which requires the People to prove the defendant successfully persuaded the victim to become a prostitute and the defendant intended to influence the victim to be a prostitute. The instruction also provides that it does not matter that the victim was a prostitute already. After analyzing Zambia, the court here concluded the prosecution was not required to prove a demonstrable change in the prostitute’s business model. “[T]he involvement of a pimp or panderer almost by definition changes the prostitute’s business.” Additionally, the requested instruction required the People to prove defendant used promises, threats, violence, or any device or scheme to encourage the prostitute to engage in prostitution, which is not an element of pandering under subdivision (a)(1). There was no instructional error and counsel provided adequate representation.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/C083509.PDF