ORS 167.017¹
Compelling prostitution

(1) A person commits the crime of compelling prostitution if the person knowingly:

(a) Uses force or intimidation to compel another to engage in prostitution or attempted prostitution;

(b) Induces or causes a person under 18 years of age to engage in prostitution;

(c) Aids or facilitates the commission of prostitution or attempted prostitution by a person under 18 years of age; or

(d) Induces or causes the spouse, child or stepchild of the person to engage in prostitution.

(2) Compelling prostitution is a Class B felony.

(3) In a prosecution under subsection (1)(b) or (c) of this section, the state is not required to prove that the defendant knew the other person was under 18 years of age and it is no defense that the defendant did not know the person’s age or that the defendant reasonably believed the person to be older than 18 years of age. [1971 c.743 §252; 2011 c.334 §1; 2013 c.271 §1]

Notes of Decisions

Though initial instruc­tion in pros­e­cu­­tion under this sec­tion was abstract means of instructing jury that mi­nor’s con­sent is not de­fense to compelling prostitu­tion, reinstruc­tion directly stated applicable law and removed confusion of initial instruc­tion. State v. Wood, 34 Or App 569, 579 P2d 294 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

Evidence that, inter alia, defendant prevailed on mi­nors to engage in prostitu­tion by providing them the opportunity and manipulating them was sufficient for con­vic­­tion under this sec­tion and no showing of threats or force was re­quired. State v. Williams, 40 Or App 227, 594 P2d 1281 (1979)

Where evidence proving promoting prostitu­tion was part of larger body of evidence proving at­tempted compelling prostitu­tion, it was error for trial court to separately convict defendant for both promoting prostitu­tion (under ORS 167.012 (Promoting prostitution)) and at­tempted compelling prostitu­tion (under this sec­tion). State v. Barnett, 42 Or App 69, 600 P2d 877 (1979)

Where evidence supported inference that defendant’s purpose was, at min­i­mum, to compel an­oth­er into prostitu­tion, that satisfies require­ments of this sec­tion. State v. Odoms, 117 Or App 1, 844 P2d 217 (1992)

Terms “induce” and “compel” apply to third party promoter of prostitu­tion and do not apply to patron of prostitute. State v. Vargas-Torres, 237 Or App 619, 242 P3d 619 (2010)

Law Review Cita­tions

51 OLR 430 (1972); 50 WLR 115 (2013)

Law Review Cita­tions

51 OLR 428, 435, 523 (1972)

Chapter 167

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Exemp­tion of nuisance laws from constitu­tional require­ment for pay­ments based on govern­ment regula­tions restricting use of prop­erty, (2001) Vol 49, p 284

Law Review Cita­tions

51 OLR 427-637 (1972)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 167—Offenses Against General Welfare and Animals, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors167.­html (2019) (last ac­cessed May 16, 2020).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2019, Chapter 167, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano167.­html (2019) (last ac­cessed May 16, 2020).
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent. Currency Information