X hits on this document





10 / 23

doubt.”  [Citation.]  Instead, the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’”  (People v. Hatch (2000)Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 318- 319.)  The standard is the same where the prosecution relies mainly on circumstantial evidence.  (Rodriguez, supra, at p. 11, citing People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 792.)  “The credibility of the witnesses is an issue for the trier of fact and the judgment of the trial court will not be reversed unless there is no substantial evidence in the record that will support the conclusion of the trier of fact.”  (People v. Hashimoto (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 862, 866 (Hashimoto).)

Pimping and Pandering

Section 266h provides, in relevant part, that “any person who, knowing another person is a prostitute, lives or derives support or maintenance in whole or in part from the earnings or proceeds of the person’s prostitution . . . or who solicits or receives compensation for soliciting for the person, is guilty of pimping. . . .”  (§ 266h, subd. (a).)  “[S]ection 266h can be violated in either of two basic ways:  (1) by deriving support from the earnings of another’s act of prostitution or (2) by soliciting.  In order to violate the statute by soliciting, there must be either the receipt of compensation for soliciting for a prostitute or the solicitation of compensation for soliciting for a prostitute.”  (People v. McNulty (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 624, 630 [Fourth Dist., Div. Two].)

Subdivisions (a)(1) and (a)(2) of section 266i provide, respectively, that a person is guilty of pandering if he does any of the following:  “[p]rocures another person for the

Document info
Document views78
Page views78
Page last viewedSun Jan 22 06:51:24 UTC 2017