Pandering: Clarification of Elements
October 2nd, 2015

In February, 2012, the CC Committee revised CC 1151 explaining that it does not matter whether the “prostitute” was a prostitute already or whether he or she was an undercover police officer.


In People v. Zambia (2011) 51 Cal. 4th 965, Supreme Court Justice, and former committee chair, Carol A. Corrigan answered the long open questions of (1) whether specific intent is required for the crime of pandering and (2) whether one can encourage another person to become a prostitute when one believes that the target in question is already a prostitute. The answer to both questions is now yes. The committee revised CC No. 1151, Pandering, accordingly. It updated the instruction further to reflect the ruling in People v. Dixon (2011) 191 Cal. App. 4th 1154, that pandering requires services procured for someone other than the defendant. The committee added citations to both cases to the bench notes. (Advisory Committee on Criminal Jury Instructions, Report to the Judicial Council for meeting of February 28, 2012, p. 3.)


In the August, 2012, revision, the committee stated that “In response to a comment from the collective appellate defense projects, the committee revised the definition of ‘pandering’ and ‘prostitution’ in [CC 1151], Pandering, to clarify how the act of pandering must be with ‘someone other than the defendant,’ under People v. Dixon (2011) 191 Cal. App. 4th 1154, 1159-60. The previous revision had embedded this language in the definition of “prostitute” and the commentator noted that it would be more clear if embedded in the definition of ‘pandering.’ The committee agreed.”

Tags: ,