X hits on this document





14 / 23

and Rohn.  The evidence of these nonaccomplice witnesses connected defendant with the commission of the crime in such a way that the jury could be well satisfied that the two women were telling the truth.  Both testified as to how they were recruited and kept, and how defendant took all the money they earned.  H. corroborated these statements by recounting the details of defendant’s efforts to recruit her:  if she worked for him, he would take all her money because otherwise she would spend it too fast; and if she got a car, it would be in his name.  Staton testified that this was standard industry practice:  “[T]he girl does all the work, the guy gets all the money.”  Rohn had actually seen defendant drop a woman off at the Comfort Inn for what appeared to be prostitution activities.

Pimping P.

Substantial evidence also demonstrated that defendant violated section 266h by pimping P., just as he pimped Q.:  by advertising her for prostitution, taking the proceeds of this activity, and living on her earnings.  As D. and Staton credibly testified, defendant included photographs of P. in his prostitution advertisements on the Internet.  As D. and Q. testified, defendant took all the money his girls earned as prostitutes.  The trial court correctly observed that there was no reason to believe defendant had posted P.’s photographs without expecting remuneration, just as he did from his other girls, and that the jury could reasonably conclude that P. too had paid him.

Finally, there was no doubt that defendant lived, and lived well, deriving support from the earnings of all his prostitutes.  Defendant resided in a $2,300-a-month house

Document info
Document views39
Page views39
Page last viewedThu Oct 27 01:17:25 UTC 2016