## Facts

- Todd Robert Dixon, a family acquaintance of 17-year-old L.N., sent her text messages offering $200 or more to “spend the night” with him.
- L.N. understood the offer as a request for sexual intercourse, not as an offer involving babysitting or other nonsexual activity.
- L.N. informed her parents, who contacted law enforcement.
- Police used L.N.’s phone to continue texting Dixon and arranged a meeting at a motel.
- Dixon arrived at the motel and was arrested.
- At arrest, Dixon possessed more than $200 in cash and items suggesting an intent to engage in sexual activity.
- Dixon was charged and convicted of pandering under California Penal Code § 266i based on the theory that his offer encouraged L.N. to engage in prostitution.

## Issues

1. Whether California’s pandering statute applies when a defendant offers money to a person to have sex with the defendant himself, rather than procuring or encouraging that person to have sex with third parties.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the pandering conviction.
- The court held that pandering requires procuring or encouraging a person to become a prostitute for the lewd gratification of another person (a third party).
- Because Dixon’s conduct was a direct proposition to pay for sex with himself, it did not fall within the statutory meaning of pandering.
- The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

## Legal Principles

- Under California law, “pandering” is construed as an intermediary offense: procuring, inducing, or encouraging someone to engage in prostitution for others, not merely offering money to the same person for sex with oneself.
- Statutory terms such as “procure,” “induce,” and “encourage” a person “to become a prostitute” are read in light of established case law treating prostitution as providing sexual services to clients beyond the procurer.
- Courts will not expand a criminal statute beyond its settled scope absent clear legislative direction, particularly where prior decisions have given the charged term a narrower, traditional meaning.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that Dixon’s offer of money for sex with himself described direct solicitation rather than pandering, and therefore his pandering conviction could not stand because the statute targets third-party procurement into prostitution rather than customer propositions.


People v. Dixon, 191 Cal. App. 4th 1154, 119 Cal. Rptr. 3d 901 (Ct. App. 2011)