Opinion ID: 1834259
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sufficiency of Evidence for Pandering.

Text: Gilmour argues that there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction of pandering under Iowa Code section 725.3(2) (1991). He urges that the evidence falls short of that found in the cases of State v. Williams, 315 N.W.2d 45 (Iowa 1982), and State v. Clark, 406 N.W.2d 802 (Iowa App. 1987). He points out that, in both Williams and Clark, there was a well-designed plan for prostitution and in each of the cases the defendant actively sought to implement that plan. Gilmour urges that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, only shows that he asked if Cassandra would be interested in dancing at bachelor parties, and if she were interested she could also be paid for sex at such parties. Gilmour maintains that this evidence is insufficient for a conviction for pandering in comparison with the substantial amount of evidence found in both Williams and Clark. The pandering statute provides: A person who persuades, arranges, coerces, or otherwise causes a minor to become a prostitute or to return to the practice of prostitution after having abandoned it, or keeps or maintains any premises for the purpose of prostitution involving minors or knowingly shares in the income from such premises knowing the character and content of such income, commits a class C felony. Iowa Code § 725.3(2). Gilmour argues that the evidence does not show he persuaded, arranged, coerced, or otherwise caused Cassandra to become a prostitute. We disagree. The general purpose of section 725.3 is to prevent the spread of prostitution by imposing punishment for those individuals who encourage commission of the crime. Williams, 315 N.W.2d at 50. We have recognized that the fact that acts of prostitution never took place is immaterial for a conviction on pandering charges. Id. at 50-51. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, it appears from the evidence that Gilmour enticed Cassandra to appear at bachelor parties for the purposes of performing both nude dancing and sex for money. That evidence alone serves to sustain the pandering conviction. Consequently, we need not consider whether the episode with the pizza deliveryman also established an act of pandering by Gilmour. We have considered all arguments presented and conclude that the judgment of the district court should be affirmed. AFFIRMED.