There is a split of authority on whether pandering, per PC 266i(a)(2) requires that services be procured for a person other than the defendant. (People v. Dixon (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1159- 1160 [third person required]; People v. Jacobo (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 32, 47 [no third person required].)
Jacobo rejected Dixon as follows:
“Although Jacobo also cites People v. Dixon (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1154 in support of his argument that section 266i(a)(2) requires a third person for the offense of pandering, we are not bound by Dixon‘s holding and disagree with its reasoning. Citing [People v.] Roderigas [(1874) 49 Cal. 9] as well as common dictionary definitions of “pandering,” Dixon concluded that section 266i(a)(2) pandering requires that a panderer procure the gratification of the passion of lewdness of a prostitute for another (i.e., a third person). (Dixon, at pp. 1156, 1159-1160.) Accordingly, Dixon reversed the defendant’s conviction for pandering under section 266i(a)(2) because he offered the victim money to have sex only with him. (Dixon, at p. 1160.) However, Dixon‘s reasoning omitted an analysis of the plain meaning of the words of section 266i(a)(2) and, in effect, relied on Roderigas‘s common law definition of the offense of pandering. Moreover, to the extent Dixon considered the actual language of section 266i(a)(2), it observed that its language “is silent on [the] issue” of whether a third person is required for its defined offense of pandering. (Dixon, at p. 1158.) In our view, that “silence” supports our conclusion that section 266i(a)(2) can be committed without a third person. If the Legislature had intended to require the persuasion or encouragement of another person (i.e., a victim) to become a prostitute for a third person, it presumably would have expressly included that third person requirement within the plain language of that statute. Because it did not, we infer it did not intend to include such a requirement in its definition of section 266i(a)(2) pandering. We are unpersuaded by Dixon‘s reasoning and reject its conclusion that section 266i(a)(2) requires a third person to commit the offense of pandering.”
If the court concludes that requires a third person, give the bracketed sentence that begins with “Pandering requires.”
