Fixler

People v. Fixler

Bad Law
128 Cal. Rptr. 363·1976 Cal. App. LEXIS 1353·56 Cal. App. 3d 321
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 17, 1976Crim. 27157California1,212 words

Opinion

Opinion

Compton, J.

In a nonjury trial defendants Fixler and Utterback were convicted of conspiring to violate Penal Code section 266i (pandering). In addition, Fixler was convicted of two substantive counts of pandering and Utterback was convicted of one substantive count of pandering. They appeal from the judgment of conviction.

There is little dispute as to the facts underlying the judgment. Utterback was one of several photographers employed by American Art Enterprises, a concern that publishes various magazines devoted to the depiction of sexual activity. Fixler was a “photo editor” for American Art Enterprises. In that capacity he directed the work of the photographers and from time to time held meetings at which the quality and content of the pictures was discussed. At one meeting Fixler gave instructions to the photographers as to what they should do in the case of arrest.

The photographers obtained the services of their subjects from independent modeling agencies and paid various fees to these “models” for engaging in several types of sexual activity while being photographed. This activity ran the gamut from masturbation through homosexual oral copulation to heterosexual oral…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.