Court Opinion

ID: 9735422
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:14:53.064105+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:58.437465
License: Public Domain

GIVAN, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority in this opinion. I believe the majority of the Court of Appeals was correct in their decision in this case, reported as State v. Hartman (1992), Ind.App., 594 N.E.2d 830.
I think the language of the statute is clear and correctly interpreted by the Court of Appeals. I see no reason why an individual cannot be both a prostitute and also a link in the procurement chain. In the instant case, it would have been a simple thing for the original procurer to have directed the customer to the house of prostitution. However, he chose not to do so and delegated that responsibility to the person who, as it eventually turned out, was the actual prostitute.
I would deny transfer in this case.