Hageseth v. Superior Court
2007 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5647, 59 Cal. Rptr. 3d 385, 150 Cal. App. 4th 1399 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state has criminal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant whose actions, conducted entirely outside the state, are intended to and do produce a detrimental effect within the state. Such jurisdiction exists when an offense is commenced outside the state but consummated within its boundaries through any means proceeding directly from the defendant, including the internet.
Facts:
- John McKay, a resident of San Mateo County, California, initiated an online purchase of fluoxetine (generic Prozac) from an interactive website.
- McKay submitted an online questionnaire that identified him as a resident of California.
- The website's operator, JRB Health Solutions in Florida, forwarded McKay's request to its subcontractor, Hageseth, a physician residing and licensed in Colorado.
- From Colorado, Hageseth reviewed McKay's questionnaire and issued an online prescription for fluoxetine.
- Hageseth electronically transmitted the prescription to JRB's server in Texas.
- JRB then forwarded the prescription to Gruich Pharmacy Shoppe in Biloxi, Mississippi.
- The Mississippi pharmacy filled the prescription and mailed the fluoxetine to McKay at his address in California.
- Hageseth was never physically present in California during these events and never directly communicated with anyone in the state.
Procedural Posture:
- The San Mateo County District Attorney filed a criminal complaint in the superior court (trial court) charging Hageseth with practicing medicine in California without a license.
- The trial court issued an arrest warrant for Hageseth.
- Hageseth demurred to the complaint and filed motions to quash the warrant and dismiss the complaint, arguing the court lacked territorial jurisdiction.
- The trial court overruled the demurrer and denied the motions.
- Hageseth filed a writ petition with the California Court of Appeal, seeking to compel the trial court to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a California court have criminal jurisdiction over a defendant who, while located entirely outside of California, practices medicine on a California resident via the internet, resulting in the delivery of a prescription into California, even though the defendant was never physically present in the state?
Opinions:
Majority - Kline, P. J.
Yes, a California court has criminal jurisdiction. An out-of-state defendant is subject to prosecution in California for an offense commenced outside the state but consummated within it through means directly proceeding from the defendant. The court's reasoning is based on the "detrimental effects" theory of extraterritorial jurisdiction, as codified in California Penal Code § 778. This principle holds that acts done outside a jurisdiction, but intended to produce and producing harmful effects within it, justify the state in punishing the cause of the harm. Hageseth's act of prescribing a drug for a person he knew was a California resident, knowing it would be sent there, produced the detrimental effect—the unlicensed practice of medicine—that the state's licensing statute was designed to prevent. The crime was 'consummated' in California because that is where the prohibited result occurred. The use of the internet and out-of-state intermediaries does not defeat jurisdiction because they are simply the 'means' through which Hageseth's actions reached into and took effect in California.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the application of the traditional 'detrimental effects' theory of criminal jurisdiction to offenses facilitated by the internet. It confirms that physical presence is not a prerequisite for criminal prosecution when an out-of-state actor uses cyberspace to target and harm residents within a state. The case establishes a significant precedent for prosecuting a wide range of cybercrimes, such as online fraud and the unlicensed practice of regulated professions, by treating electronic communications as a direct 'means' under existing jurisdictional statutes. Consequently, this ruling strengthens a state's ability to protect its residents from remote actors who commit crimes that culminate within its borders.
