O.C.G.A. § 16-6-11 (2019)
Pimping
A person commits the offense of pimping when he or she performs any of the following acts: (1) Offers or agrees to procure a prostitute for another;
(2) Offers or agrees to arrange a meeting of persons for the purpose of prostitution; (3) Directs or transports another person to a place when he or she knows or should know that the direction or transportation is for the purpose of prostitution; (4) Receives money or other thing of value from a prostitute, without lawful consideration, knowing it was earned in whole or in part from prostitution; or (5) Aids or abets, counsels, or commands another in the commission of prostitution or aids or assists in prostitution where the proceeds or profits derived therefrom are to be divided on a pro rata basis.
History
Ga. L. 1918, p. 267, § 1; Code 1933, § 26-6201; Code 1933, § 26-2013, enacted by Ga. L. 1968, p. 1249, § 1; Ga. L. 1970, p. 236, § 2; Ga. L. 2003, p. 573, § 1.
Annotations
Law reviews. - For article, ‘‘Misdemeanor Sentencing in Georgia,’’ see 7 Ga.
St. B. J. 8 (2001). For article, ‘‘Crimes and Offenses: Crimes Against the Person,’’ see 28 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 131 (2011). For note on the 2003 amendment to this Code section, see 20 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 84 (2003).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Specifying the type of prostitution act offered is not required in accusation for pimping. State v. Kenney, 233 Ga. App. 298, 503 S.E.2d 585 (1998). There was no error in trial court’s denial of motion for directed verdict of acquittal based upon the assertion that the probata did not conform to the allegata, in that the original accusation charged that the defendant received money from a prostitute without lawful consideration on February 23, 1983, but the evidence at trial showed that the offense occurred on February 2, 1983, because time is not a material element of the offense of pimping and the state proved that the offense occurred within the statute of limitation prior to the return of the indictment. Angevine v. State, 171 Ga. App. 658, 320 S.E.2d 578 (1984). Sufficient evidence supported conviction. - In addition to the substantive evidence of defendant’s guilt, provided by the victim’s prior inconsistent statements, evidence of women’s sexy clothing found in defendant’s hotel room, which the victim said that defendant had purchased, and information downloaded from an In-
ternet site detailing the pimping lifestyle, was sufficient evidence to authorize a rational trier of fact to find defendant guilty of aggravated child molestation, statutory rape, and pimping. Lewis v. State, 278 Ga. App. 160, 628 S.E.2d 239 (2006). Convictions for attempting to commit trafficking a person for sexual servitude, conspiring to commit pimping, and enticing a child under 16 for indecent purposes were supported by evidence that two victims were taken home from a bar by the defendant and one was asked if she would be comfortable doing prostitution in the defendant’s household, and the two victims gave out a business card for the escort service and posted ads for prostitution on Craigslist. Ferguson v. State, 335 Ga. App. 862, 783 S.E.2d 380 (2016). Evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of pimping a person under the age of 18, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and trafficking a person for sexual servitude because the copies of the birth certificate and social security card found in the victim’s purse showed that the victim was under the age of 18; and an employee of the youth residence, from
which the victim had recently run away, verified the victim’s identity and that the victim was 16 years old. Mackey v. State, 342 Ga. App. 791, 805 S.E.2d 596 (2017). Evidence supported probable cause. - Probable cause existed to arrest the defendant for pimping after the officer had sufficient facts to reasonably believe that the defendant drove the escort to the hotel and that the defendant knew, or should have known, that the escort was engaging in prostitution at the hotel. United States v. Daniels, No. 1:13-cr-454-WSD, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15291 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 9, 2015). Conviction for felony versus misdemeanor appropriate. - Trial court did not err by sentencing defendant for felony pimping, instead of only a misdemeanor
count of pimping, since the defendant was charged with instructing a person to commit the act of prostitution and receiving money therefrom, which was a clear violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-6-11(4), and because the indictment alleged that the person whom defendant instructed was under the age of 18 years, the crime of pimping was elevated to a felony under O.C.G.A. § 16-6-13(b). Burroughs v. State, 292 Ga. App. 580, 665 S.E.2d 4 (2008), cert. denied, No. S08C1930, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 930 (Ga. 2008). Cited in Snead v. State, 127 Ga. App. 12, 192 S.E.2d 415 (1972); Sutton v. Garmon, 245 Ga. 685, 266 S.E.2d 497 (1980); Fluker v. State, 248 Ga. 290, 282 S.E.2d 112 (1981); Sellers v. State, 176 Ga. App. 681, 337 S.E.2d 373 (1985).
RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 63C Am. Jur. 2d, Prostitution, § 17 et seq. C.J.S. - 73 C.J.S., Prostitution and Related Offenses, §§ 11, 14, 15, 27. ALR. - White Slave Traffic Act (Mann Act) as affecting constitutionality or application of state statutes dealing with prostitution, 161 A.L.R. 356.
Validity and construction of statute or ordinance proscribing solicitation for purposes of prostitution, lewdness, or assignation - modern cases, 77 A.L.R.3d 519. Separate acts of taking earnings of or support from prostitute as separate or continuing offenses of pimping, 3 A.L.R.4th 1195.