This is a criminal case in which defendant was convicted of second-degree sexual abuse, ORS 163.425, compelling prostitution, ORS 167.017, and two counts of third-degree rape, ORS 163.355. On appeal, defendant makes two assignments of error. We write only to address defendants first assignment of error, which challenges the trial courts denial of defendants motion for judgment of acquittal for compelling prostitution. Defendant argues that compelling prostitution, as defined by ORS 167.017, does not apply to patrons of prostitutes; instead, it applies only to third-party promoters of prostitution. As discussed below, the context and legislative history of ORS 167.017 establish that defendants argument is correct. Because there was no evidence that defendant was a third-party promoter, we reverse defendants conviction for compelling prostitution, remand for resentencing, and, because we reject defendants second assignment of error without discussion, otherwise affirm.