Moral turpitude - Revision history

Sysop: /* Moral turpitude for impeachment purposes */

2024-02-13T13:49:33Z

Moral turpitude for impeachment purposes

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:49, 13 February 2024
Line 208:		Line 208:
	''People v. Chatman''		''People v. Chatman''

	===Impeachment with conduct involving moral turpitude that results in juvenile ~~adjudiations~~===		===Impeachment with conduct involving moral turpitude that results in juvenile adjudications===

	Juvenile adjudications are not criminal convictions. (Welf and Inst. Code 203.)		Juvenile adjudications are not criminal convictions. (Welf and Inst. Code 203.)
Line 215:		Line 215:

	Under ''Wheeler'', conduct involving moral turpitude while a juvenile is admissible. (''People v. Rivera'' (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1374; ''People v. Lee'' (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1724, 1738-1740.)		Under ''Wheeler'', conduct involving moral turpitude while a juvenile is admissible. (''People v. Rivera'' (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1374; ''People v. Lee'' (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1724, 1738-1740.)

			===Impeachment of convictions dismissed under PC1203.4===
			''People v. Field'' (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1778; Pen. Code 788

	==Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude for Immigration Purposes==		==Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude for Immigration Purposes==

Sysop: /* Impeachment with conduct involving moral turpitude that results in juvenile adjudiations */

2024-01-29T02:24:26Z

Impeachment with conduct involving moral turpitude that results in juvenile adjudiations

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:24, 29 January 2024
Line 213:		Line 213:

	Juvenile adjudications aren't prior convictions for purposes of PC190.3 (''People .v Barton'' (1989) 48 Cal.3d 843, 861-862.)		Juvenile adjudications aren't prior convictions for purposes of PC190.3 (''People .v Barton'' (1989) 48 Cal.3d 843, 861-862.)

			Under ''Wheeler'', conduct involving moral turpitude while a juvenile is admissible. (''People v. Rivera'' (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1374; ''People v. Lee'' (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1724, 1738-1740.)

	==Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude for Immigration Purposes==		==Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude for Immigration Purposes==

Sysop at 02:21, 29 January 2024

2024-01-29T02:21:01Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:21, 29 January 2024
Line 207:		Line 207:

	''People v. Chatman''		''People v. Chatman''

			===Impeachment with conduct involving moral turpitude that results in juvenile adjudiations===

			Juvenile adjudications are not criminal convictions. (Welf and Inst. Code 203.)

			Juvenile adjudications aren't prior convictions for purposes of PC190.3 (''People .v Barton'' (1989) 48 Cal.3d 843, 861-862.)

	==Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude for Immigration Purposes==		==Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude for Immigration Purposes==

Sysop: /* Moral turpitude for impeachment purposes */

2023-11-17T14:20:07Z

Moral turpitude for impeachment purposes

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:20, 17 November 2023
Line 124:		Line 124:
	\|PC594\|\|Vandalism\|\|Yes\|\|''People v. Campbell'' (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1488, 1492–1495\|\|At the time of ''Campbell'', felony vandalism required at least $1,000 of damage, an amount which the court deemed non-trivial. Current felony 594 sets the minimum at $400.<BR>''People v. Muniz'' (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1324, rev. granted and opn. depublished, held misdemeanor vandalism was moral turpitude.		\|PC594\|\|Vandalism\|\|Yes\|\|''People v. Campbell'' (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1488, 1492–1495\|\|At the time of ''Campbell'', felony vandalism required at least $1,000 of damage, an amount which the court deemed non-trivial. Current felony 594 sets the minimum at $400.<BR>''People v. Muniz'' (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1324, rev. granted and opn. depublished, held misdemeanor vandalism was moral turpitude.
	\|-		\|-
	\|PC647(b)\|\|Prostitution\|\|Yes\|\|''[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7555239949748916061 People v. Alvarez'' (1996) 14 Cal.4th 155, 201, fn.11]<br>''[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4615004300140193709 People v. Chandler'' (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 703, 708–709]		\|PC647(b)\|\|Prostitution\|\|Yes\|\|''[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7555239949748916061 People v. Alvarez'' (1996) 14 Cal.4th 155, 201, fn.11]<br>''[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4615004300140193709 People v. Chandler'' (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 703, 708–709]<BR>[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17982304443687892651 People v. Hayes (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1238]
	\|-		\|-
	\|PC647.6\|\|Child molestation\|\|Probably yes\|\|''People v. Castro'' (1985) 38 Cal.3d 301, 315\|\|''Castro'' did not per se hold 647.6 as moral turpitude, but did label "child molestation" as "moral depravity".		\|PC647.6\|\|Child molestation\|\|Probably yes\|\|''People v. Castro'' (1985) 38 Cal.3d 301, 315\|\|''Castro'' did not per se hold 647.6 as moral turpitude, but did label "child molestation" as "moral depravity".

Sysop at 02:47, 25 August 2022

2022-08-25T02:47:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:47, 25 August 2022
Line 124:		Line 124:
	\|PC594\|\|Vandalism\|\|Yes\|\|''People v. Campbell'' (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1488, 1492–1495\|\|At the time of ''Campbell'', felony vandalism required at least $1,000 of damage, an amount which the court deemed non-trivial. Current felony 594 sets the minimum at $400.<BR>''People v. Muniz'' (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1324, rev. granted and opn. depublished, held misdemeanor vandalism was moral turpitude.		\|PC594\|\|Vandalism\|\|Yes\|\|''People v. Campbell'' (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1488, 1492–1495\|\|At the time of ''Campbell'', felony vandalism required at least $1,000 of damage, an amount which the court deemed non-trivial. Current felony 594 sets the minimum at $400.<BR>''People v. Muniz'' (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1324, rev. granted and opn. depublished, held misdemeanor vandalism was moral turpitude.
	\|-		\|-
	\|PC647(b)\|\|Prostitution\|\|Yes\|\|''People v. Alvarez'' (1996) 14 Cal.4th 155, 201, fn.11<br>''People v. Chandler'' (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 703, 708–709		\|PC647(b)\|\|Prostitution\|\|Yes\|\|''[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7555239949748916061 People v. Alvarez'' (1996) 14 Cal.4th 155, 201, fn.11]<br>''[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4615004300140193709 People v. Chandler'' (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 703, 708–709]
	\|-		\|-
	\|PC647.6\|\|Child molestation\|\|Probably yes\|\|''People v. Castro'' (1985) 38 Cal.3d 301, 315\|\|''Castro'' did not per se hold 647.6 as moral turpitude, but did label "child molestation" as "moral depravity".		\|PC647.6\|\|Child molestation\|\|Probably yes\|\|''People v. Castro'' (1985) 38 Cal.3d 301, 315\|\|''Castro'' did not per se hold 647.6 as moral turpitude, but did label "child molestation" as "moral depravity".

Sysop: /* Moral turpitude for impeachment purposes */

2022-04-27T02:57:26Z

Moral turpitude for impeachment purposes

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:57, 27 April 2022
Line 9:		Line 9:
	Moral turpitude in an attorney disciplinary context is not necessarily moral turpitude for impeachment purposes. (''People v. Thomas'' (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 689, 701–702.)		Moral turpitude in an attorney disciplinary context is not necessarily moral turpitude for impeachment purposes. (''People v. Thomas'' (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 689, 701–702.)

			It used to be the law that for a felony, only the conviction or only the conduct can be used for impeachment, not both. People v. Dalton (2019) 7 Cal.5th 166, held both conviction and conduct can be used, but still subject to 352.

	"There is no automatic limitation on the number of priors admissible for impeachment." (''People v. Dillingham'' (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 688, 695.)		"There is no automatic limitation on the number of priors admissible for impeachment." (''People v. Dillingham'' (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 688, 695.)

Sysop at 21:28, 11 April 2022

2022-04-11T21:28:59Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:28, 11 April 2022
Line 121:		Line 121:
	\|PC496\|\|Receiving stolen property\|\|Yes\|\|''People v. Turner'' (1990) 50 Cal.3d 668, 705<BR>''People v. Rodriguez'' (1986) 177 Cal. App. 3d 174, 179		\|PC496\|\|Receiving stolen property\|\|Yes\|\|''People v. Turner'' (1990) 50 Cal.3d 668, 705<BR>''People v. Rodriguez'' (1986) 177 Cal. App. 3d 174, 179
	\|-		\|-
	\|PC594\|\|Vandalism\|\|Yes\|\|''People v. Campbell'' (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1488, 1492–1495\|\|At the time of ''Campbell'', felony vandalism required at least $1,000 of damage, an amount which the court deemed non-trivial. Current felony 594 sets the minimum at $400.<BR>''People v. Muniz'' (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1324, rev. granted, held misdemeanor vandalism was moral turpitude.		\|PC594\|\|Vandalism\|\|Yes\|\|''People v. Campbell'' (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1488, 1492–1495\|\|At the time of ''Campbell'', felony vandalism required at least $1,000 of damage, an amount which the court deemed non-trivial. Current felony 594 sets the minimum at $400.<BR>''People v. Muniz'' (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1324, rev. granted and opn. depublished, held misdemeanor vandalism was moral turpitude.
	\|-		\|-
	\|PC647(b)\|\|Prostitution\|\|Yes\|\|''People v. Alvarez'' (1996) 14 Cal.4th 155, 201, fn.11<br>''People v. Chandler'' (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 703, 708–709		\|PC647(b)\|\|Prostitution\|\|Yes\|\|''People v. Alvarez'' (1996) 14 Cal.4th 155, 201, fn.11<br>''People v. Chandler'' (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 703, 708–709
Line 127:		Line 127:
	\|PC647.6\|\|Child molestation\|\|Probably yes\|\|''People v. Castro'' (1985) 38 Cal.3d 301, 315\|\|''Castro'' did not per se hold 647.6 as moral turpitude, but did label "child molestation" as "moral depravity".		\|PC647.6\|\|Child molestation\|\|Probably yes\|\|''People v. Castro'' (1985) 38 Cal.3d 301, 315\|\|''Castro'' did not per se hold 647.6 as moral turpitude, but did label "child molestation" as "moral depravity".
	\|-		\|-
	\|<del>PC1320</del>\|\|<del>FTA while ROR</del>\|\|<del>Yes</del>\|\|<del>''People v. Perez'' (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 24, ~~review~~ granted, Nov. 18, 2015.)</del>		\|<del>PC1320</del>\|\|<del>FTA while ROR</del>\|\|<del>Yes</del>\|\|<del>''People v. Perez'' (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 24, re granted and opn. depublished, Nov. 18, 2015.)</del>
	\|-		\|-
	\|PC1320.5\|\|FTA for a felony while on bail\|\|Yes\|\|''People v. Maestas'' (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1552, 1556–1558		\|PC1320.5\|\|FTA for a felony while on bail\|\|Yes\|\|''People v. Maestas'' (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1552, 1556–1558

Sysop at 14:25, 16 September 2020

2020-09-16T14:25:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:25, 16 September 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Moral Turpitude''' has multiple meanings in California criminal law. The most common one is that witnesses may be impeached if they have convictions or conduct that was moral turpitudinous. Another one that is probably as critical to know is that Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude (CIMT) can have immigration consequences. Less common is that convictions of moral turpitude may have an effect on professional licensing. Just because a crime is moral turpitude on one category, that does not mean it is moral turpitude in another category, which is why the list is broken down into three categories. For example, assault with a deadly weapon (PC245(a)(1)) is moral turpitude for impeachment, but not for attorney discipline. As another example, kidnapping (PC207) is moral turpitude for impeachment, but not for immigration.		'''Moral Turpitude''' has multiple meanings in California criminal law. The most common one is that witnesses may be impeached if they have convictions or conduct that was moral turpitudinous. Another one that is probably as critical to know is that Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude (CIMT) can have immigration consequences. Less common is that convictions of moral turpitude may have an effect on professional licensing. Just because a crime is moral turpitude in one category, that does not mean it is moral turpitude in another category, which is why the list is broken down into three categories. For example, assault with a deadly weapon (PC245(a)(1)) is moral turpitude for impeachment, but not for attorney discipline. As another example, kidnapping (PC207) is moral turpitude for impeachment, but not for immigration.


Line 13:		Line 13:

	''People v. Beagle'' (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441, 453, said the following four factors should be considered whether to admit evidence of prior convictions for impeachment if a defendant is going to testify.		''People v. Beagle'' (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441, 453, said the following four factors should be considered whether to admit evidence of prior convictions for impeachment if a defendant is going to testify.
	#Does the prior ~~reflectly~~ adversely on the defendant's honesty or veracity?		#Does the prior reflect adversely on the defendant's honesty or veracity?
	#Is the prior near or remote in time?		#Is the prior near or remote in time?
	##The time that has elapsed since the ~~convivtion~~		##The time that has elapsed since the conviction
	##The time that defendant was free between offenses.		##The time that defendant was free between offenses.
	##The defendant's age		##The defendant's age
	##The ~~dfeendant~~'s subsequent conduct		##The defendant's subsequent conduct
	#Is the prior substantially similar to the instant charge?		#Is the prior substantially similar to the instant charge?
	#Will the impeachment influence the defendant's decision to testify?		#Will the impeachment influence the defendant's decision to testify?

Sysop: /* Moral turpitude for impeachment purposes */

2018-10-26T22:39:44Z

Moral turpitude for impeachment purposes

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:39, 26 October 2018
Line 141:		Line 141:
	\|PC25400(a)(1)<BR>Former PC12025(a)(1)\|\|Illegally concealing a firearm in a vehicle\|\|Yes\|\|''People v. Aguilar'' (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1010, rev. den. June 15, 2016,		\|PC25400(a)(1)<BR>Former PC12025(a)(1)\|\|Illegally concealing a firearm in a vehicle\|\|Yes\|\|''People v. Aguilar'' (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1010, rev. den. June 15, 2016,
	S233451.)		S233451.)
			\|-
			\|PC25850\|\|Illegally carrying loaded firearm in public\|\|Yes\|\|''People v. Bedolla'' (Oct. 22, 2018, H044681) ___ Cal.App.5th ___
	\|-		\|-
	\|Former PC12020\|\|Possession of deadly weapon\|\|Yes\|\|''People v. Garrett'' (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 795\|\|''Garrett'' was about a conspiracy to possess a regulated weapon, a hand grenade, violating U.S.C. §371 and 26 U.S.C. §5851(d). The court analogized it to the PC12020 series of laws, saying that such weapons are only used for criminal purposes.		\|Former PC12020\|\|Possession of deadly weapon\|\|Yes\|\|''People v. Garrett'' (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 795\|\|''Garrett'' was about a conspiracy to possess a regulated weapon, a hand grenade, violating U.S.C. §371 and 26 U.S.C. §5851(d). The court analogized it to the PC12020 series of laws, saying that such weapons are only used for criminal purposes.

Sysop at 17:36, 13 May 2018

2018-05-13T17:36:44Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:36, 13 May 2018
Line 254:		Line 254:
	\|PC136.1\|\|Bribing a witness to not testify\|\|Yes\|\|''In re Hanley'' (1975) 13 Cal.3d 448		\|PC136.1\|\|Bribing a witness to not testify\|\|Yes\|\|''In re Hanley'' (1975) 13 Cal.3d 448
	\|-		\|-
	\|PC245(a)(1)\|\|Assault with a deadly weapon\|\|No\|\|''In re Strick (1983) 34 Cal.3d 891, 902<BR>''In re Rothrock'' (1940) 16 Cal.2d 449, 459		\|PC245(a)(1)\|\|Assault with a deadly weapon\|\|No\|\|''In re Strick'' (1983) 34 Cal.3d 891, 902<BR>''In re Rothrock'' (1940) 16 Cal.2d 449, 459
	\|-		\|-
	\|PC272\|\|Contributing to delinquency of a minor\|\|Maybe\|\|''In re Duggan'' (1976) 17 Cal.3d 416, 422		\|PC272\|\|Contributing to delinquency of a minor\|\|Maybe\|\|''In re Duggan'' (1976) 17 Cal.3d 416, 422