The trial court is affirmed.
While it is true that the plain meaning of the verb "direct" is consistent with Hartman's actions, we are persuaded that such an interpretation in this case is inconsistent with legislative intent.
To the extent the court's dicta in Benjamin suggests that a lone prostitute could be charged with a class C felony under such circumstances, however, it is error for the reasons we have described above.A person who: (1) knowingly or intentionally entices or compels another whore signs person to become a prostitute; (2) knowingly or intentionally procures, or offers or agrees to procure, a person for another person for the purpose of prostitution; (3) having control over the use.Details of Indiana's prostitution related laws are outlined below.LeBlanc was arrested for prostitution at the meeting.It seems unlikely that the legislature intended for prosecuting attorneys to have the discretion to charge a first offense as a class C felony merely because the prostitute invites the customer into his home.Code : The proposed section creates a comprehensive single crime of promoting prostitution, embracing various acts which in fact tend to promote prostitution.Human and Sexual Trafficking, what is Prohibited?However, the offense is a Class D felony if the person has two (2) prior convictions under this section.XX-XX-X-X Promoting prostitution Sec.On appeal, Benjamin made much the same argument which Hartman presents today, citing the Criminal Law Study Commission's comment that the promoting statute only reaches third parties.The State presented the following facts in its affidavit for probable cause.
Promotion of Human Trafficking of a Minor - Knowingly recruiting, harboring, or transporting another for forced prostitution (or labor) of a child under.The Court of Appeals reversed, declaring that the plain meaning of "directing another person to a place for prostitution" encompassed Hartman's alleged act of calling Truog and giving him directions to his house.Finally, because the majority opinion in the Court of Appeals rested partly on Benjamin.We grant Hartman's petition to transfer.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.When I asked for the manager she said they didn't wanna give their number out (hmm I wonder why) and to call another number but there was definitely no way I could get a refund.
However, he chose not to do so and delegated that responsibility to the person who, as it eventually turned out, was the actual prostitute.
This controversy involves Indiana's prostitution laws, and it is best described in plain English: Can the State use the "pimp" statute to charge a prostitute with a felony for engaging in conduct that is otherwise by definition only a misdemeanor?
For the purpose of prostitution." In granting Hartman's motion to dismiss, the trial court held that the promoting statute was intended to reach the conduct of a third party, and not the immediate parties to the act of prostitution.