Compelling prostitution
Source:
Section 167.017 — Compelling prostitution, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors167.html.
Notes of Decisions
Though initial instruction in prosecution under this section was abstract means of instructing jury that minor’s consent is not defense to compelling prostitution, reinstruction directly stated applicable law and removed confusion of initial instruction. State v. Wood, 34 Or App 569, 579 P2d 294 (1978), Sup Ct review denied
Evidence that, inter alia, defendant prevailed on minors to engage in prostitution by providing them the opportunity and manipulating them was sufficient for conviction under this section and no showing of threats or force was required. State v. Williams, 40 Or App 227, 594 P2d 1281 (1979)
Where evidence proving promoting prostitution was part of larger body of evidence proving attempted compelling prostitution, it was error for trial court to separately convict defendant for both promoting prostitution (under ORS 167.012) and attempted compelling prostitution (under this section). State v. Barnett, 42 Or App 69, 600 P2d 877 (1979)
Where evidence supported inference that defendant’s purpose was, at minimum, to compel another into prostitution, that satisfies requirements of this section. State v. Odoms, 117 Or App 1, 844 P2d 217 (1992)
Terms “induce” and “compel” apply to third party promoter of prostitution and do not apply to patron of prostitute. State v. Vargas-Torres, 237 Or App 619, 242 P3d 619 (2010)
Law Review Citations
51 OLR 430 (1972); 50 WLR 115 (2013)
Up to date