State v. Hartman

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…