Petitioner was charged with numerous violations of California Penal Code Section 288.2(b) which makes it a criminal offense to send, via the Internet...or any commercial online service, specified harmful matter to a minor "with the intent or for the purpose of seducing a minor."

David Irving Hatch engaged in sexually explicit communications with a 20 year old woman who he believed to be 13 years old, and with whom he had tried to arrange a meeting. During the course of his communication with the woman, he sent several nude pictures of women, often accompanied with the suggestion of meeting for the purpose of sexual conduct between himself and the "young girl."

Petitioner argued that the evidence against him was insufficient, that the statute pertaining to distribution of sexual material to a minor was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause and the First Amendment, and that the statute should not be interpreted to apply to the Internet.

The Court of Appeals determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to uphold the attempted seduction of a minor charge. The lower court was presented with videotapes, transcripts and photographs to go along with the testimony of the arresting officers and the woman posing as the young woman. The Court of Appeals noted that Hatch was not charged with violation of the crime of seduction of a minor, but rather the attempt to seduce a minor. Therefore, the evidence in question, which proved that Hatch believed the girls he was communicating with to be under 14 years of age, was sufficient. As for the constitutional challenge of the statute imposing a burden on interstate commerce, the Court held that no burden would occur because there was no reason to believe that enforcement of the statute would result in the imposition of California law into other states.

Petitioner's First Amendment challenge was also similarly dismissed. The Appeals Court held that the communications clearly met the standards of prohibited material as set out by Miller. Also, the Court noted that Hatch was not a person seeking to distribute indecent material to adults that might have in some way been viewed by minors, but rather, he was charged with violating a statute that punished individuals who sought intercourse and other sexual activity from minors. As such, the statute was found to have no chilling effect on protected speech.