Opinion ID: 1967035
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the evidence in these cases

Text: The crime of soliciting for prostitution has four elements. To convict any defendant of that offense under D.C. Code § 22-2701, the government must prove that he or she (1) invited, enticed, or persuaded (or addressed for the purpose of inviting, enticing, or persuading) (2) a person age 16 or over (3) for the purpose of engaging, agreeing to engage, or offering to engage in sexual acts or contacts with that person (4) in return for a fee. Graves v. United States, 515 A.2d 1136, 1145 (D.C.1986). All three appellants contend that the evidence offered by the government was insufficient to sustain their convictions because there was no proof of the fourth element. We agree. In considering a claim of evidentiary insufficiency, we must review the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, recognizing the factfinder's role in weighing the evidence, determining the credibility of witnesses, and drawing justifiable inferences from the evidence. Ford I, supra, 498 A.2d at 1137; accord, e.g., United States v. Hubbard, 429 A.2d 1334, 1337-1338 (D.C.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 857, 102 S.Ct. 308, 70 L.Ed.2d 153 (1981); Byrd v. United States, 388 A.2d 1225, 1229 (D.C.1978); Crawford v. United States, 126 U.S.App.D.C. 156, 375 F.2d 332 (1967); Curley v. United States, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 389, 160 F.2d 229, cert. denied, 331 U.S. 837, 67 S.Ct. 1512, 91 L.Ed. 1850 (1947). Moreover, there is no legal distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence. Hall v. United States, 454 A.2d 314, 317 (D.C.1982); Byrd v. United States, supra, 388 A.2d at 1229; Chaconas v. United States, 326 A.2d 792, 797 (D.C.1974). The government's argument that there was sufficient evidence of solicitation for a fee is based on this court's decision in Ford I, supra, a factually similar case (coincidentally involving one of these appellants) in which the evidence was held to be sufficient. Appellants, on the other hand, urge us to follow Graves v. United States, supra , in which a division of this court reversed the convictions of both appellants because there was no record evidence that appellants offered or attempted to engage in sex in return for a fee, so that the evidence [was] insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellants' conduct was for a commercial purpose. 515 A.2d at 1146 (footnote omitted). We agree with appellants because, as we emphasized in Graves, the issue of whether there was sufficient evidence of a fee was not raised, and therefore was not decided, in Ford I. Although sufficiency was an issue in Ford I, the entire focus of the appellant's argument was on whether the officer's testimony established a solicitation. There was no challenge whatever to the proof of the purpose of the solicitation, and the division did not raise the issue on its own. Such restraint by the division was, of course, entirely proper. The premise of our adversarial system is that appellate courts do not sit as self-directed boards of legal inquiry and research, but essentially as arbiters of legal questions presented and argued by the parties before them. Carducci v. Regan, 230 U.S.App.D.C. 80, 86, 714 F.2d 171, 177 (1983). Had the court in Ford (or any other case) reached out and decided an issue that was not raised by the parties, or at least briefed or argued after having been raised by the court sua sponte, the losing party would have had a legitimate complaint. Thus the Graves court was absolutely right in concluding that it was not bound by Ford I because Ford I does not even discuss, let alone purport to decide, the fee issue. Graves, supra, 515 A.2d at 1147. The court noted in Graves that it had found no case in the District of Columbia, until [ Ford I ], which has upheld a conviction [of soliciting for prostitution] without some reference to financial consideration. Id. (citations omitted). The only logical explanation for this difference between Ford I and all the other reported cases, as the Graves court inferred (and as the record in Ford I confirmed), is that the issue of financial consideration was not raised in Ford I. As Graves and many other cases make clear, the statute requires in every case that there be proof of a commercial purpose in the transaction between the putative prostitute and her putative customer; without such proof, the statute almost certainly could not withstand constitutional challenge. See Wood v. United States, 498 A.2d 1140, 1144 (D.C. 1985); United States v. Moses, 339 A.2d 46, 51-53 (D.C.1975), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 920, 96 S.Ct. 2624, 49 L.Ed.2d 373 (1976). Although it does not matter which party broaches the commercial nature of the transaction, there must be evidence of an understanding ... that a commercial venture was contemplated when the sexual availability was made apparent. Dinkins v. United States, supra note 1, 374 A.2d at 296. There was no such evidence in these cases. [10] The government argues that the totality of the circumstances in these cases supports a finding that each appellant was soliciting for the purpose of prostitution. We cannot agree. None of the conversations overheard by the officers included any offer of sex in exchange for a fee or for any form of consideration. [11] The evidence presented in these cases established, at most, that appellants looked and perhaps acted like prostitutes, but that is not enough to sustain a conviction. See City of Portland v. Miller, 62 Ore.App. 145, 149, 659 P.2d 980, 983 (1983). The fact that each appellant was beckoning to male motorists and talking to male pedestrians was ambiguous without further proof that there was some reference to financial consideration. [12] [I]nferential proof of an ultimate fact may not be based upon a mere possibility, speculation or conjecture. Jackson v. District of Columbia, 180 A.2d 885, 888 (D.C.1962) (footnote omitted). Because there was no evidence in any of these cases that a commercial venture was contemplated when the sexual availability was made apparent, Dinkins v. United States, supra note 1, 374 A.2d at 296, all five convictions must be reversed.