Return to CALJIC Part 9-12 – Contents
F 10.70 n1 Pimping: When Witness Must Be Corroborated (PC 266j).
If the defendant is prosecuted under PC 266j, there is no requirement that the complaining witness’ testimony be corroborated under PC 1108. (See People v. Mena (88) 206 CA3d 420, 424-25 [254 CR 10].)
However, if the prosecution is under PC 266, the PC 1108 corroboration requirement applies. (Ibid.)
F 10.70 n2 Pimping/Pandering: Requirement Of Physical Contact Between Prostitute And Customer.
Without the underlying crime of prostitution there can be no pimping or pandering pursuant to PC 266h. (See FORECITE F 16.420b.)
F 10.70a
Pimping: Defined – Inapplicable to Nude Modeling
(PC 266h)
*Add to CJ 10.70 when appropriate:
Nude modeling does not constitute an act of prostitution and, therefore, the act of procuring a person solely for the purpose of nude modeling does not constitute the crime of pimping.
Points and Authorities
In People v. Hill (80) 103 CA3d 525, 537 [163 CR 99], the court held that it was reversible error for the court to fail to sua sponte instruct the jury as set forth above.
Failure to adequately instruct the jury upon matters relating to proof of any element of the charge and/or the prosecution’s burden of proof thereon violates the defendant’s state (Art. I, § 15 and § 16) and federal (6th and 14th Amendments) constitutional rights to trial by jury and due process. [See generally, FORECITE PG VII(C).]
RESEARCH NOTES
See Annotation, Validity and construction of statute or ordinance proscribing solicitation for purposes of prostitution, lewdness or assignation — modern cases, 77 ALR3d 519 and Later Case Service.