Offenses Against General Welfare and Animals
Prostitution
Notes of Decisions
Absent evidence that defendant offered to engage in sexual conduct for a fee, defendant could not be found guilty of attempt to commit prostitution within meaning of ORS 161.405. State v. Brown, 31 Or App 501, 570 P2d 1001 (1977)
Complaint which alleged that defendants did “offer and agree to engage in sexual conduct in return for a fee” stated facts sufficient to state a crime. State v. East, 31 Or App 743, 571 P2d 195 (1977)
Complaint was not defective for failing to allege that defendant “intentionally” agreed to pay fee for sexual conduct. State v. Huie, 292 Or 335, 638 P2d 480 (1982)
Where city’s mandatory minimum penalty is harsher than state law minimum for same conduct, city’s penalty is invalid under Article XI, Section 2 of Oregon Constitution as incompatible with state criminal law. City of Portland v. Dollarhide, 300 Or 490, 714 P2d 220 (1986)
This section falls within historical exception to section 8, Article I of Oregon Constitution, which that provision demonstrably was not intended to reach. State v. Grimes, 85 Or App 159, 735 P2d 1277 (1987), Sup Ct review denied
For venue purposes, offer or agreement transmitted over telephone simultaneously occurs where each party to conversation is located. State v. Harris, 242 Or App 438, 256 P3d 156 (2011), Sup Ct review denied
“Fee” means something that has economic value and that is exchanged in a transaction that is commercial in character. State v. Palomo, 256 Or App 498, 301 P3d 439 (2013)
Law Review Citations
55 OLR 553-566 (1976); 50 WLR 115 (2013)