## Facts

- Stockton vice officers received an anonymous tip that two females were arranging prostitution appointments by phone.
- An undercover officer called the provided number; a female agreed to “get together,” and a second female also agreed after asking what he wanted.
- The females directed the officer to obtain motel rooms first and to pick them up at a specified street corner; they indicated they needed a ride.
- Officers picked up Elizabeth (a minor) and another girl; during the drive, the girls asked whether the officers were police and were reassured they were not.
- When asked how much it would cost, Elizabeth responded they did not want to discuss it until they were in their rooms.
- At the motel, officers took separate rooms with each girl; the other girl agreed on a price, took money, and was arrested.
- In Elizabeth’s room, as price was being discussed and money was being offered, Elizabeth said she had “changed her mind” and wanted to leave; she was then arrested for solicitation.
- After arrest, Elizabeth admitted she had engaged in prostitution to obtain money to help her family.
- The juvenile court found the Penal Code § 647(b) allegation true and declared Elizabeth a ward under Welfare and Institutions Code § 602.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported a finding that Elizabeth “solicited” prostitution under Penal Code § 647(b) based on her statements and coordinated conduct.
2. Whether Elizabeth’s asserted withdrawal (“changed her mind”) before any sexual act occurred negated solicitation liability.
3. Whether the wardship adjudication violated equal protection or due process, including claims of gender-disparate prostitution enforcement and asserted vagueness/overbreadth.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the wardship order.
- The court held substantial evidence supported the finding that Elizabeth solicited prostitution, even without an explicit verbal offer stating a specific price for sex.
- The court held solicitation was complete once the unlawful proposal was communicated; a later change of mind did not undo the offense.
- The court rejected equal protection and due process challenges, finding no showing of intentional discriminatory enforcement and no constitutional defect in the statute as applied.

## Legal Principles

- Solicitation under Penal Code § 647(b) is complete when a person seriously requests, invites, or encourages another to engage in prostitution with unlawful intent; completion of the act, agreement, or exchange of money is not required.
- Solicitation may be established through circumstantial evidence, including coordinated appointment-making, arranging a motel meeting, deferring price discussions to a private room, and admissions indicating an intent to trade sex for money.
- Post-solicitation withdrawal or renunciation does not negate criminal liability for solicitation once the solicitation has occurred.
- Equal protection claims based on prostitution arrest disparities require proof of intentional, invidious discrimination; statistical imbalance alone is insufficient.
- Due process is satisfied where statutory terms and judicial constructions provide fair notice of prohibited conduct and the statute is not unconstitutional as applied to the defendant’s conduct.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed the juvenile court’s wardship adjudication, holding that Elizabeth’s coordinated arrangements and statements provided substantial evidence of solicitation under Penal Code § 647(b), that her later attempt to withdraw did not negate a completed solicitation, and that she failed to establish equal protection or due process violations.


In re Elizabeth G., 53 Cal. App. 3d 725 (Ct. App. 1975)