Skip to content
Name: People v. Dixon
Case #: C060804
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 01/14/2011
Summary

The crime of pandering (Pen. Code, § 266i, subd. (a)(2)) requires proof of luring someone to become a prostitute to satisfy the desires of another person. A person who seeks sex for himself with money as an inducement is not a panderer. Appellant was convicted of pandering based on a text message he sent to a 17-year-old family friend that read, “U with me, 1 night, $200 or more.” Appellant argued this conduct did not support a pandering conviction because a person seeking sex for himself is not a panderer. The appellate court noted the statute does not specify whether the procurement of sex has to be on behalf of another person, or whether simply offering money to someone in exchange for sex suffices. But, relying of People v. Roderigas (1874) 49 Cal. 9, the court held the former is required. Roderigas aptly noted that a person seeking sex for his own gratification is “a seducer.” This is consistent with the ordinary definition of pander, which is “to provide gratification for the desires of others.” Here, appellant wanted to have sex with the girl and offered her money to persuade her to do so. There was no evidence that he intended to have her become a prostitute and engage in sex with others. Accordingly, the conviction was reversed.