X hits on this document





17 / 23

In Bradshaw, the defendant was charged with pandering after he made a deal with an undercover policewoman to set her up as a prostitute and split her fees.  (Bradshaw, supra, 31 Cal.App.3d at p. 423.)  At trial, the prosecution argued that while the defendant had admittedly not successfully “‘caused, induced, or persuaded’” the officer to become a prostitute, he had “‘encouraged’” her to do so and had so violated former subdivision (b) (now subd. (a)(2)) of section 266i.  (Bradshaw, at p. 424.)  The defendant countered that “encourage” implies success and that “‘to become’” means that “the woman involved cannot have been a prostitute prior to defendant’s persuasive activities.”  (Ibid.)

Relying upon the combined effect of Lax and Frey, the Bradshaw court rejected both these contentions.4  (Bradshaw, supra, 31 Cal.App.3d at pp. 425-426.)  “[S]uccess is not a necessary element of the offense proscribed by the word ‘encourage’ as used in subdivision (b) of section 266i.”  (Id. at p. 425.)  Similarly, the court concluded that the results in Lax and Frey, along with language in Charles,5 meant that the statute covers “cases where a defendant has solicited one whom he believes to be a former prostitute

(  In Lax, the defendant was unsuccessful because the woman he persuaded to become a prostitute changed her mind before engaging in any acts of prostitution.  (Lax, supra, 20 Cal.App.3d at 481.)  In Frey, the defendant was unsuccessful because, as in Bradshaw, the targeted woman was a police officer.  (Frey, supra, 228 Cal.App.2d at p. 58.)

(  “Whether the female person procured for or encouraged to become an inmate of a house of ill-fame is ‘an innocent girl or a hardened prostitute of long experience’ is immaterial to the issues raised by a charge of pandering.”  (Charles, supra, 218 Cal.App.2d at p. 822, quoting Montgomery, supra, 47 Cal.App.2d at p. 12.)  Although Bradshaw quoted Charles quoting Montgomery, it noted that neither of the earlier courts had supported the statement with analysis and that Charles had resolved its own case as an attempt rather than under subdivision (b).  (Bradshaw, supra, at pp. 424 & fn. 5, 426 & fn. 9.)

Document info
Document views77
Page views77
Page last viewedSat Jan 21 23:58:41 UTC 2017