## Facts

- Pennsylvania State Police ran an undercover prostitution investigation in Pittsburgh in June 1978.
- On June 15, an undercover trooper called a woman identified as Debbie Ross, posing as a convention attendee seeking sexual services.
- Ross quoted a price of $25 per man plus $25 cab fare and directed the trooper to a motel, stating $200 had to be paid before services.
- The trooper went to the motel room and was met by Cindy Lou Dodge, nude, who confirmed payment was required “up front.”
- Dodge accompanied the trooper by cab to a hotel where another trooper was present; after discussing specific sexual services and receiving $200, Dodge began to undress.
- Dodge was arrested, advised of her rights, and stated she and Ross split the money evenly.
- Dodge was convicted of prostitution (18 Pa.C.S. § 5902(a)) and criminal conspiracy in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County.

## Issues

1. Whether 18 Pa.C.S. § 5902(a) is unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, including the terms “sexual activity as a business,” “loiters,” and “inmate of a house of prostitution.”
2. Whether § 5902(a) impermissibly chills First Amendment rights of speech, association, or assembly.
3. Whether § 5902(a) violates equal protection or the Pennsylvania Equal Rights Amendment by allegedly imposing disparate consequences based on gender.
4. Whether criminalizing prostitution violates constitutional privacy or substantive due process protections for consensual adult sexual conduct.
5. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a mistrial based on allegedly prejudicial trial statements or testimony.

## Decision

- The Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence for prostitution and criminal conspiracy.
- The court held § 5902(a) was not unconstitutionally vague; its language, read in context, gave fair notice of the prohibited commercial conduct.
- The court rejected overbreadth and First Amendment “chilling” claims because the statute targets conduct (commercial sex), not protected expression.
- The court found no facial gender classification or equal-protection violation in § 5902(a).
- The court concluded prostitution, as commercialized sexual activity, falls outside any protected privacy interest that would bar criminal prohibition.
- The court upheld the denial of a mistrial, finding no event that reasonably deprived Dodge of a fair and impartial trial.

## Legal Principles

- A criminal statute is not void for vagueness if persons of common intelligence can understand what conduct is prohibited when the statute is read in context and in light of its purpose.
- Statutory terms are sufficiently definite when qualifying language narrows the prohibition to clearly proscribable conduct (e.g., “loiters” limited by intent “for the purpose of being hired”).
- Overbreadth and First Amendment invalidation are generally inappropriate where the statute regulates conduct rather than protected speech, association, or assembly.
- Equal protection is not violated absent an invidious classification on the face of the statute; differences in enforcement or related provisions do not, by themselves, establish facial invalidity.
- Constitutional privacy protections for consensual adult intimacy do not prevent the state from prohibiting commercial sexual transactions.
- A mistrial is warranted only where the challenged event may reasonably be said to have deprived the defendant of a fair and impartial trial; curative instructions and limited prejudice can support denial.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Dodge’s convictions and sustained Pennsylvania’s prostitution statute, concluding it clearly targets commercial sexual activity, does not infringe First Amendment or privacy rights, contains no invalid gender classification, and was tried without prejudice requiring a mistrial.


Commonwealth v. Dodge, 429 A.2d 1143 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1981)