Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 1081 (2026)

Offense - Punishment - Fines

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Any person who shall procure any other person for prostitution, or who, by promise, threats, violence or by any device or scheme shall cause, induce, persuade or encourage another person to become a prostitute; or shall procure a place as inmate in a house of prostitution for another person; or who shall, by promise, threats, violence, or by any device or scheme cause, induce, persuade or encourage an inmate of a house of prostitution to remain therein as such inmate; or who shall, by fraud, or artifice, or by duress of person or goods, or by abuse of any position of confidence or authority procure any other person to become a prostitute, or to enter any place in which prostitution is encouraged or allowed within this state, or to come into this state or leave this state for the purpose of prostitution, or who shall procure any other person, who has not previously practiced prostitution to become a prostitute within this state, or to come into this state or leave this state for the purpose of prostitution; or shall receive or give or agree to receive or give any money or thing of value for procuring or attempting to procure any other person to become an inmate of a house of prostitution within this state, or to come into this state or leave this state for the purpose of prostitution, shall be guilty of pandering, and upon conviction for any offense under this article shall be guilty of a Class B2 felony offense and

shall be punished by imprisonment in the State Penitentiary for a period of not less than two (2) years nor more than twenty (20) years and by fines as follows: a fine of not less than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) and not more than Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000.00) upon the first conviction for such offense, a fine of not less than Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000.00) and not more than Six Thousand Dollars ($6,000.00) upon the second conviction, and a fine of not less than Six Thousand Dollars ($6,000.00) and not more than Nine Thousand Dollars ($9,000.00) for the third or subsequent convictions for such offense. R.L. 1910, § 2425. Amended by Laws 1997, c. 133, § 286, eff. July 1, 1999; Laws 1999, 1st Ex.Sess., c. 5, § 188, eff. July 1, 1999; Laws 2000, c. 123, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2000; Laws 2002, c. 120, § 3, emerg. eff. April 19, 2002; Laws 2025, c. 486, § 73, eff. Jan. 1, 2026. NOTE: Laws 1998, 1st Ex.Sess., c. 2, § 23 amended the effective date of Laws 1997, c. 133, § 286 from July 1, 1998, to July 1, 1999.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1973–2021 · leading case: Miller v. State, 827 P.2d 875 (Okla. Crim. App. 1992).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Miller v. State, 827 P.2d 875 (Okla. Crim. App. 1992). · cites it 3× “OPINION LANE, Presiding Judge: Appellant, Harold Ray Miller, was tried by jury for the crimes of Attempted Pandering, After Former Conviction of a Felony (21 O.S.1981, § 1081); and Indecent Exposure (21 O.”

Lambert v. State, 609 P.2d 785 (Okla. Crim. App. 1980). “The appellant first argues it was error for the trial court to overrule the demurrer, the motion to quash, and the motion to dismiss because the State failed to prove the elements of the pandering statute, 21 O.S.1971, § 1081, which provides: “Any person who shall procure a…”

Taylor v. State, 516 P.2d 1351 (Okla. Crim. App. 1973). · cites it 2× “CRF-72-40, for the crime of Pandering in violation of 21 O.S.1971, § 1081. He was sentenced to serve a term of fifteen (15) years in the state penitentiary in accordance with a verdict of the jury and a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.”

State v. Johnson (Kan. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 4× “Johnson's criminal history includes two Oklahoma convictions he now argues were improperly scored: a 2015 conviction for pandering, contrary to Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 1081 , and a 2015 conviction for transportation for purpose of prostitution, contrary to Okla.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.