Jurisdiction and venue - Revision history

Sysop: /* Jurisdiction */

2026-09-10T05:16:11Z

Jurisdiction

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:16, 10 September 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:

	==Jurisdiction==		==Jurisdiction==

			KeyNumber 110k97(1)

	Jurisdiction is issue decided by trial court pretrial, not by jury. (People v. Betts (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1039.)		Jurisdiction is issue decided by trial court pretrial, not by jury. (People v. Betts (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1039.)

Sysop: /* Jurisdiction */

2026-09-10T05:02:50Z

Jurisdiction

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:02, 10 September 2026
Line 3:		Line 3:

	Jurisdiction is issue decided by trial court pretrial, not by jury. (People v. Betts (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1039.)		Jurisdiction is issue decided by trial court pretrial, not by jury. (People v. Betts (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1039.)

			“jurisdictional facts need be proved only by a preponderance of the evidence and not beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Betts, at p. 1053.)

	PC778: When the commission of a public offense, commenced without the State, is consummated within its boundaries by a defendant, himself outside the State, through the intervention of an innocent or guilty agent or any other means proceeding directly from said defendant, he is liable to punishment therefor in this State in any competent court within the jurisdictional territory of which the offense is consummated.		PC778: When the commission of a public offense, commenced without the State, is consummated within its boundaries by a defendant, himself outside the State, through the intervention of an innocent or guilty agent or any other means proceeding directly from said defendant, he is liable to punishment therefor in this State in any competent court within the jurisdictional territory of which the offense is consummated.

Sysop at 05:01, 10 September 2026

2026-09-10T05:01:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:01, 10 September 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:

	==Jurisdiction==		==Jurisdiction==

			Jurisdiction is issue decided by trial court pretrial, not by jury. (People v. Betts (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1039.)

	PC778: When the commission of a public offense, commenced without the State, is consummated within its boundaries by a defendant, himself outside the State, through the intervention of an innocent or guilty agent or any other means proceeding directly from said defendant, he is liable to punishment therefor in this State in any competent court within the jurisdictional territory of which the offense is consummated.		PC778: When the commission of a public offense, commenced without the State, is consummated within its boundaries by a defendant, himself outside the State, through the intervention of an innocent or guilty agent or any other means proceeding directly from said defendant, he is liable to punishment therefor in this State in any competent court within the jurisdictional territory of which the offense is consummated.

	California has jurisdiction over Internet crime committed outside California but having directed impact on California resident. (Hageseth v. Superior Court (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1399, 1419.)		California has jurisdiction over Internet crime committed outside California but having directed impact on California resident. (Hageseth v. Superior Court (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1399, 1419.)

			It is not necessary to “detrimental effect” theory of extraterritorial jurisdiction in criminal cases that defendant be physically present in state during some portion of time during which his alleged criminal act took place, or that he act through agent physically present in state, or that there exist a statute or judicially declared exception extending state's territorial jurisdiction for particular crime with which defendant is charged. Hageseth v. Superior Court (App. 1 Dist. 2007) 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 385, 150 Cal.App.4th 1399, review denied. Criminal Law Key Number 97(1)

			Under detrimental effect theory of extraterritorial jurisdiction, state had jurisdiction over foreign state defendant, charged with felony offense of practicing medicine in California without license, who engaged entirely in Internet-mediated communications while outside state and prescribed drugs to California resident, even though he was absent from state, did not act through local agent, and acted through intermediaries who were also out of state.

	Where a statute, in addition to prohibiting conduct, includes within its definition of the offense a specific result, the crime is not completed, and thus not “consummated” for jurisdictional statutes, until that result occurs. (Hageseth v. Superior Court (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1399.)		Where a statute, in addition to prohibiting conduct, includes within its definition of the offense a specific result, the crime is not completed, and thus not “consummated” for jurisdictional statutes, until that result occurs. (Hageseth v. Superior Court (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1399.)

Sysop at 04:50, 10 September 2026

2026-09-10T04:50:14Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:50, 10 September 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:

	==Jurisdiction==		==Jurisdiction==

			PC778: When the commission of a public offense, commenced without the State, is consummated within its boundaries by a defendant, himself outside the State, through the intervention of an innocent or guilty agent or any other means proceeding directly from said defendant, he is liable to punishment therefor in this State in any competent court within the jurisdictional territory of which the offense is consummated.

	California has jurisdiction over Internet crime committed outside California but having directed impact on California resident. (Hageseth v. Superior Court (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1399, 1419.)		California has jurisdiction over Internet crime committed outside California but having directed impact on California resident. (Hageseth v. Superior Court (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1399, 1419.)

			Where a statute, in addition to prohibiting conduct, includes within its definition of the offense a specific result, the crime is not completed, and thus not “consummated” for jurisdictional statutes, until that result occurs. (Hageseth v. Superior Court (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1399.)

			All persons who commit any crime in whole or in part within the state are liable to punishment under its laws, where defendant from Mexico mailed forged check on Arizona bank to bank in California, which sent check for collection to bank in Arizona, he was guilty of forgery and subject to punishment under California law. (People v. Sansom (1918) 37 Cal.App. 435.)

	==Venue==		==Venue==

Sysop: Created page with " ==Jurisdiction== California has jurisdiction over Internet crime committed outside California but having directed impact on California resident. (Hageseth v. Superior Court (..."

2017-12-28T18:11:20Z

Created page with " ==Jurisdiction== California has jurisdiction over Internet crime committed outside California but having directed impact on California resident. (Hageseth v. Superior Court (..."

New page

==Jurisdiction==
California has jurisdiction over Internet crime committed outside California but having directed impact on California resident. (Hageseth v. Superior Court (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1399, 1419.)

==Venue==