People v. Dixon, C060804

Defendant's conviction for pandering reversed

People v. Dixon, C060804, concerned a challenge to a conviction of defendant for pandering, based on a text message he sent to a minor that appeared to be soliciting sex for money.  In reversing the conviction, the court held that the California's Supreme Court has explained that a panderer is one who procures the gratification of the passion of lewdness for another, and here, there was no evidence of that in this case.


As the court wrote: "The "recognized meaning" of procure "refers to the act of a person 'who procures the gratification of the passion of lewdness for another.'  This is its distinctive signification, as uniformly understood and applied. In so recognizing, Rodriguez specifically rejected the People's argument that, because a seducer is a person who prevails upon a female...to have illicit carnal connection with himself, he is thereby brought within the mere words of the statute, and so made liable to the punishment it inflicts.  The Supreme Court stated, "this view cannot be maintained by any rile of fair interpretation.""

Related Link:

• Read the Full Decision in People v. Dixon, C060804