Hageseth

Hageseth v. Superior Court

Good Law
150 Cal. App. 4th 1399·2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 786·59 Cal. Rptr. 3d 385·2007 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5647
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 21, 2007A115390California11,262 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kline, J.

This writ petition, presents the question whether a defendant who was never himself physically present in this state at any time during the commission of the criminal offense with which he is charged, and did not act through an agent ever present in this state, is subject to the criminal jurisdiction of respondent court even though no jurisdictional statute specifically extends the extraterritorial jurisdiction of California courts for the particular crime with which he is charged. After determining that this writ proceeding is not premature, we shall conclude that territorial jurisdiction to prosecute lies under the traditionally applicable legal principles, and it makes no difference that the charged conduct took place in cyberspace rather than real space.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW

On May 24, 2006, the San Mateo County District Attorney filed a criminal complaint charging, petitioner with the felony offense of practicing medicine in California without a license in violation of section 2052 of the Business and Professions Code. Section 2052 provides that aiiy person who “practices or attempts to practice, or who advertises or holds himself or herself out as…

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.