Moral turpitude

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.

Moral turpitude for impeachment purposes

Most of this table was stolen from Simons California Evidence Manual, §3:56, the CEB Criminal Law Procedure and Practice book, §24.46, and a list from Michael Ogul.

Moral turpitude as a standard for impeachment was created by People v. Castro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 301. It was defined as "general readiness to do evil." (Id. at pp. 313–314.)

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.)

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

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.

1. Does the prior reflect adversely on the defendant's honesty or veracity?
2. Is the prior near or remote in time?
   1. The time that has elapsed since the conviction
   2. The time that defendant was free between offenses.
   3. The defendant's age
   4. The defendant's subsequent conduct
3. Is the prior substantially similar to the instant charge?
4. Will the impeachment influence the defendant's decision to testify?

n.b. To preserve for appeal the issue of whether the court rightfully or wrongfully admitted the priors, the defendant must testify.

Code	Crime	Moral Turpitude	Citation	Notes
HSC11350	Simple possession	No	People v. Castro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 301, 317 People v. Dossman (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 843, 848–849
HSC11351	Possession for sale	Yes	People v. Castro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 301, 317 People v. Dossman (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 843, 848–849
HSC11352	Transportation or sales	Yes	People v. Navarez (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 936, 949 People v. Hunt (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 668, 674
HSC11357	Possession of marijuana	No	People v. Valdez (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 680
HSC11358	Cultivation of marijuana	Yes	People v. Gabriel (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 450, 459
HSC11359	Possession of marijuana for sale	Yes	People v. Standard (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 431, 435
HSC11364	Possession of paraphernalia	No	People v. Cloyd (1997) 45 Cal.App.4th 1402, 1409
HSC11366	Maintaining place for controlled substances	Yes	People v. Vera (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1100
PC69	Resisting executive officer	Yes	People v. Williams (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1460
PC136.1	Dissuading a witness	Maybe	People v. Mickle (1991) 54 Cal.3d 140, 168	Threatening witnesses to not testify is "morally lax" and indicates a readiness to lie.
PC148.9	Giving false information to peace officer	Yes	People v. Steele (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 212, 222–223
PC187	Murder	Yes	People v. Johnson (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 425, 459
PC192(a)	Voluntary manslaughter	Yes	People v. Foster (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 20, 25 People v. Partner (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 178, 187 People v. Parrish (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 336, 349–350
PC192(b)	Involuntary manslaughter	No	People v. Solis (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 877, 883
PC207	Kidnapping	Yes	People v. Morris (1991) 53 Cal.3d 152, 195 People v. Zataray (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 390, 400
PC211	Robbery	Yes	People v. Collins (1986) 42 Cal.3d 378, 385 People v. Nguyen (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 181, 187 People v. Rodriguez (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 174, 178 People v. Brown (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 800, 806 People v. Stewart (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 59, 64 People v. Burns (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 734, 739
Former PC217	Assault with intent to commit murder	Yes	People v. Olmedo (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 1085, 1097 People v. Sandoval (1992) 4 Cal. 4th 155, 177–178
PC220	Assault with intent to commit rape	Yes	People v. Morris (1991) 53 Cal.3d 152, 195, disapproved on other grounds in People v. Stansbury (1995) 9 Cal.4th 824, 830, fn. 1 People v. Bonilla (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 201, 205
PC236/PC237	False imprisonment by violence or fraud	Yes	People v. Cornelio (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1580, 1585
PC240	Simple assault	No	People v. Cavazos (1985) 172 Cal. App. 3d 589, 594
PC242	Simple battery	No	People v. Mansfield (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 82, 88 People v. Cavazos (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 589, 594 People v. Lindsay (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 849, 856
PC243(b)	Battery on officer	Yes	People v. Clarida (1987) 197 Cal.App.3d 547, 552
PC243(c)	Battery on officer with injury	Yes	People v. Lindsay (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 849
PC243(d)	Battery with serious bodily injury	No	People v. Mansfield (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 82, 89
PC243.4(d)	Sexual battery	Yes	People v. Chavez (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 25, 30
PC245(a)(1)	Assault with a deadly weapon	Yes	People v. Thomas (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 689, 700 People v. Armendariz (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 674, 682 People v. Cavazos (1985) 172 Cal. App. 3d 589, 594 People v. Means (1986) 177 Cal. App. 3d 138, 139 People v. Valdez (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 680, 696	Conc. opn. of Crosby, J. in People v. Heckathorne (1988)202 Cal.App.3d 458 is critical of 245(a)(1) as moral turpitude.
PC245(a)(4)	Assault with means likely to produce GBI	Yes	People v. Elwell (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 171, 177
PC246	Shooting into inhabited building	Yes	People v. White (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1299, 1302–1305
PC246.3	Negligent discharge of firearm	Yes	People v. Feaster (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1084	An indifference to the consequences of one's actions is moral turpitude.
PC261	Rape	Yes	People v. Mazza (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 836, 844 People v. Muldrow (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 636, 649
PC261/644	Attempted rape	Yes	People v. Morris (1991) 53 Cal.3d 152, 195
PC261	Statutory rape before July 9, 1964	No	People v. Flanagan (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 764, 771–772
PC261.5, Former PC261	Statutory rape after July 9, 1964	Yes	People v. Fulcher (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 749, 754
PC266h	Pimping	Yes	People v. Jaimez (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 146, 150
PC266i	Pandering	Yes	People v. Jaimez (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 146, 150
PC273a	Child endangerment	No	People v. Sanders (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1268, 1274–1275	273a can occur by wholly passive conduct.
PC273d	Corporal injury on child	Yes	People v. Brooks (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 669, 671–672
PC273.5	Corporal injury on spouse	Yes	People v. Rodriguez (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1398, 1400–1402
PC288(a)	Lewd conduct on a minor	Yes	People v. Massey (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 819, 823
PC314	Indecent exposure	Yes	People v. Ballard (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 687, 696
PC422	Criminal threats	Yes	People v. Thornton (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 419, 424
PC451	Arson	Yes	People v. Miles (1985) 172 Cal. App. 3d 474, 482
PC459	Burglary	Yes	People v. Collins (1986) 42 Cal.3d 378, 395 People v. Almarez (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 262, 267–268 People v. Rodriguez (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 174, 178 People v. Boyd (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 36, 45 People v. Hunt (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 668, 675 People v. Knowlden (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 1052, 1057 People v. Bothuel (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 581, 595 People v. Williams (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 951, 957 People v. Muldrow (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 636, 645 People v. Castro (1985) 186 Cal.App.3d 1211, 1215
PC459/PC664	Attempted burglary	Yes	People v. Muldrow (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 636, 645
PC470	Forgery	Yes	People v. Almarez (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 262, 267 People v. Flanagan (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 764, 771 People v. Parrish (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 336, 349	All the cases discuss "forgery" in the generic, so others such as PC475 could also apply.
PC487	Grand theft	Yes	People v. Boyd (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 36, 45
PC496	Receiving stolen property	Yes	People v. Turner (1990) 50 Cal.3d 668, 705 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. 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 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".
PC1320	FTA while ROR	Yes	People v. Perez (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 24, re granted and opn. depublished, Nov. 18, 2015.)
PC1320.5	FTA for a felony while on bail	Yes	People v. Maestas (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1552, 1556–1558
PC4501.5	Battery by inmate on non-inmate	Yes	People v. Williams (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 951, 957	People v. Mansfield (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 82, 89, says that Williams was wrongly decided on this issue.
PC4530(c)	Escape by failure to return while on pass	Yes	People v. Lee (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1504, 1507–1510
PC4532(b)	Escape without force	Yes	People v. Lang (1989) 49 Cal.3d 991, 1009–1010 People v. Waldecker (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 1152, 1158
PC25400 Former PC12025	Illegally carrying a concealed firearm	Yes	People v. Robinson (2005) 37 Cal.4th 592, 625–626
PC25400(a)(1) 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.)
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.
PC29800(a)(1), Former PC12021(a)(1)	Felon in possession	Yes	People v. Robinson (2011)199 Cal.App.4th 707, 712–715 People v. Littrel (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 699, 703	Littrel involved an older version of the statute which forbade felons possessing concealable weapons.
PC17500, Former PC12024, Former PC467	Possession of deadly weapon with intent to assault	Yes	People v. Rivera (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1374, 1378–1382
PC30605, Former PC12280(b)	Unlawful possession of assault weapon	Yes	People v. Gabriel (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 450, 458
VC2800.2	Evading	Yes	People v. Dewey (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 216, 222–223
VC10851	Joyriding	Yes	People v. Rodriguez (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 174, 178 People v. Lang (1989) 49 Cal.3d 991, 1011 People v. Zataray (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 390, 399 People v. Hunt 169 Cal.App.3d 668, 675
VC10851/PC664	Attempted joyriding	Yes	People v. Rodriguez (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 174, 178
VC20001	Hit-and-run with injury	Yes	People v. Bautista (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1,7
VC23152 VC23550, Former 23175	4th DUI	Yes	People v. Forster (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1746, 1757	The repeated nature is what makes it moral turpitude, suggesting that a 1st DUI isn't moral turpitude.

Impeachment with moral turpitude felonies

People v. Castro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 301

People v. Collins (1986) 42 Cal.3d 378, 381

People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441

When impeaching with a felony conviction, only the following four can be elicited under People v. Terry (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 432, 446:

• The name of the felony
• The general nature or elements of the felony
• The date of conviction
• The place of conviction

However, if it is the defendant's felony conviction, the defendant can go into the details of the conviction. (People v. Thomas (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 689, 700, fn. 6.)

Impeachment with moral turpitude misdemeanors

Impeachment with moral turpitude misdemeanors is a lot more complicated.

Conviction is not hearsay

People v. Lee

People v. Duran

People v. Wesson

People v. Skiles (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1178, 1186

Conviction is inadmissible hearsay so must be proven by conduct

People v. Wheeler (1992) 4 Cal.4th 284

People v. Santos (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 169

People v. Hayes 3 Cal.App.4th 1238

People v. Clark (2011) 52 Cal.4th 856, 931

People v. Chatman

Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude for Immigration Purposes

Moral turpitude refers generally to conduct which is inherently base, vile, or depraved, and contrary to the accepted rules of morality and the duties owed between persons or to society in general. Moral turpitude has been defined as an act which is per se morally reprehensible and intrinsically wrong, or malum in se, so it is the nature of the act itself and not the statutory prohibition of it which renders a crime one of moral turpitude. Matter of Fualaau, 21 I. & N. Dec. 475, 1996 WL 413576 (BIA 1996)

Most of this was lifted from the Immigrants Legal Resource Center chart, but some was also taken from Norton Tooby's wonderful resources and from the Ninth Circuit's immigration outline.

The law on categorical matches changed recently with Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 1678 (2013) Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013). The summary below reflects whether the crimes are a categorical match or not to crimes involving moral turpitude in accords with Moncrieffe and Descamps, which may not have been the law at the time of decision below. So the summary below may crimes are not a match under modified categorical approach when the case says it is. If an offense is not divisible, then the modified categorical match does not apply, and the record of conviction cannot be used to determine if it was a crime involving moral turpitude.

Code	Crime	Categorical Match	Modified Categorical Approach	Citation	Notes
PC32	Accessory after the fact	No	Probably not divisible	Navarro-Lopez v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 1063, 1073 (9th Cir. 2007)(en banc)
PC148.9	False ID to officer	No	Probably not divisible	Blanco v. Mukasey, 518 F.3d 714, 718–20 (9th Cir. 2008)
PC207	Kidnapping	No	Probably not divisible	Castrijon-Garcia v. Holder, 704 F.3d 1205, 1214 (9th Cir. 2013)
PC211	Robbery	Yes	N/A	Mendoza v. Holder, 623 F.3d 1299, 1303-4 (9th Cir. 2010)
PC236	Misdemeanor False imprisonment	No	Probably not divisible	Saavedra-Figueroa v. Holder, 625 F.3d 621, 626 (9th Cir. 2010)
PC237	Felony False Imprisonment	Maybe	Probably not divisible	Saavedra-Figueroa v. Holder, 625 F.3d 621, 626 n.5 (9th Cir. 2010)
PC422	Criminal threats	Yes	N/A	Latter-Singh v. Holder, 668 F.3d 1156, 1161-63 (9th Cir. 2012)
PC484 PC488	Petty Theft	Yes	N/A	Flores Juarez v. Muaksey, 530 F.3d 1020, 1022 (9th Cir. 2008) United States v. Esparza-Ponce, 193 F.3d 1133, 1137–38 (9th Cir. 1999)
PC484 PC487	Grand Theft	Yes	N/A	United States v. Esparza-Ponce, 193 F.3d 1133, 1137–38 (9th Cir. 1999)
PC496	Receiving stolen property	No	Probably not divisible	Castillo-Cruz v. Holder, 581 F.3d 1154, 1160–61 (9th Cir. 2009)
PC532a	Credit card fraud	Yes	N/A	Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2010)
PC647.6(a)	Child molestation	No	Probably not divisible	Nicanor-Romero v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d 992, 1007 (9th Cir. 2008)
VC20001	Hit and run with injury	No	Probably divisible	Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1169–70 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2008)

Moral Turpitude for Licensing Purposes

Code	Crime	Moral Turpitude	Citation	Notes
PC32	Accessory after the fact	Yes	In re Young (1989) 49 Cal.3d 257, 264.
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 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
PC288a	Oral copulation	Yes	Jennings v. Karpe (1974) 36 Cal.App.3d 709
PC518	Extortion	Yes	Librarian v. State Bar (1952) 38 Cal.2d 328, 330
Former PC647a	Child molestation	Yes	Brewer v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 358 Cadilla v. Board of Medical Examiners (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 961
VC23152	Driving Under the Influence	No	In re Carr (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1089
18 U.S.C. § 1510	Obstruction of criminal investigation	Yes	In re Lindgren (1979) 25 Cal.3d 65
26 U.S.C. § 145	Filing false tax return	Yes	In re Hallinan (1954) 43 Cal.2d 243, 247–249