What Constitutes "Moral Turpitude"
Category > What Constitutes "Moral Turpitude"
Defendant’s prior conviction for carrying a loaded firearm in public involved moral turpitude and was admissible to impeach his credibility. Defendant was convicted of attempted first degree burglary. He argued the trial court erred by allowing the prosecution to impeach him with evidence of a prior juvenile adjudication for carrying a loaded firearm in public. The court sanitized the offense to a “felony nontheft-related crime of moral turpitude.” Defendant argued the offense did not involve moral turpitude. However, while the offense did not involve dishonesty, it did demonstrate a general readiness to do evil. The offense was therefore one that involved moral turpitude.id: 25931
Carrying a concealed firearm in a vehicle is a crime of moral turpitude, and was properly used for impeachment purposes.A felony conviction for carrying a concealed firearm in a vehicle in violation of Penal Code section 25400, subd.(a)(1) is a crime of moral turpitude, and the trial court did not err by admitting evidence of that prior to impeach defendant. id: 24595
Intimate partner battering is a crime of moral turpitude and the trial court properly admitted evidence of defendant’s prior convictions for impeachment. Defendant argued the trial court erred by admitting his two prior convictions for inflicting injury on an intimate partner (Penal Code section 273.5) for impeachment because that offense is not a crime of moral turpitude. The trial court properly admitted the evidence even though the offense can be committed in a way that does not involve moral turpitude.id: 24441
The trial court did not err by instructing the jurors that defendant’s priors involved moral turpitude and by defining that as “a readiness to do evil.” The trial court did not err by instructing the jury in response to defendant’s request that his prior crimes involved moral turpitude and by defining that as “a readiness to do evil.” Defendant opened up the issue of what moral turpitude means by requesting the priors be sanitized and agreeing to the definition. Moreover, counsel’s failure to object to the trial court’s decision to instruct on moral turpitude did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. id: 21557
Possession of an assault weapon and cultivation of marijuana are crimes involving moral turpitude and may be admitted to impeach the defendant’s credibility.Both the possession of an assault weapon and the cultivation of marijuana are crimes demonstrating a readiness to do evil, and are therefore crimes involving moral turpitude. The trial court did not err in permitting defendant’s impeachment with his prior convictions for these offenses.id: 22718
Defendant could be impeached with his prior convictions for cultivating marijuana and possessing an assault weapon because both were crimes of moral turpitude.Defendant was convicted of cultivating and possessing marijuana, and other offenses. The trial court did not err by allowing defendant to be impeached with his prior convictions for possessing an assault weapon, and cultivating marijuana because both of the offenses were crimes of moral turpitude.id: 22575
Defendant’s prior conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm was a crime of moral turpitude. Defendant’s prior conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm under Penal Code section 12021, subd.(a))1) was a crime involving moral turpitude and was admissible for impeachment. Moreover, the trial court did not abuse its discretion under Evidence Code section 352 by admitting evidence of the conviction at defendant’s trial for battery on a correctional officer. id: 22399
The trial court did not err by allowing defendant to be impeached with evidence of his prior misdemeanor vandalism. Misdemeanor vandalism is a crime involving moral turpitude because it requires proof of maliciousness. The trial court did not err in allowing defendant to be impeached at his felony vandalism trial with evidence of his prior misdemeanor vandalism.id: 22376
Driving recklessly while fleeing a peace officer is a crime involving moral turpitude and may later be used for impeachment.The trial court properly permitted defendant to be impeached with his prior Vehicle Code section 2800.2 conviction for fleeing a peace officer by driving with the intent to evade in a willful or wanton disregard for safety of persons or property. A violation of section 2800.2 is a crime of moral turpitude and a proper subject for impeachment.id: 12842
Murder, attempted murder, and assault with a firearm are crimes of moral turpitude under Castro.Defendant argued his prior convictions of murder, attempted murder and assault with a firearm did not bear on his veracity, and therefore should not have been admissible to impeach his testimony. However, the convictions involved moral turpitude and were admissible to impeach.id: 18912
Sexual battery is a crime of moral turpitude.Defendant argued the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of his misdemeanor conviction for sexual battery (Penal Code section 243.4, subd.(d).) He claimed the prior conviction had little bearing on his veracity and that its introduction into evidence was unduly prejudicial. However, sexual battery is a crime involving moral turpitude, and therefore under <i>People v. Wheeler</i> (1992) 4 Cal.4th 284, may be used to impeach. There was no abuse of discretion in admitting the evidence.id: 16441
Forcibly resisting an executive officer is a crime involving moral turpitude.Resisting an executive officer by means of force pursuant to Penal Code section 69 involves moral turpitude. As such, the trial court properly permitted the prosecutor to impeach defendant's credibility with a prior conviction under that section.id: 15986
Maintaining a place for the purpose of selling, giving away or using specified drugs is a crime of moral turpitude.A violation of Health and Safety Code section 11366 may be committed by opening or maintaining a place for the sole purpose of unlawfully "using" as opposed to "selling" or "giving away" specified controlled substances or narcotic drugs. However, regardless of which of those prohibited purposes is actually involved, the place is intended to be provided to others for that prohibited purpose. Thus, unlike an offense of simple possession, a violation of section 11366 necessarily evinces moral turpitude because it involves the intent to corrupt others.id: 15987
Battery upon a police officer involves moral turpitude under Castro.Battery upon a police officer involves moral turpitude and is admissible for impeachment.id: 12839
Brandishing a machete and threatening police involved moral turpitude and was properly admitted for impeachment purposes.The trial court admitted evidence that in 1994 defendant waved a machete in the air and threatened an officer. The court did not err in finding this conduct involved moral turpitude and admitting it for purposes of impeachment.id: 12840
Corporal punishment of a child resulting in traumatic condition is a crime involving moral turpitude for purposes of impeachment.Appellant's prior felony conviction for corporal punishment of a child resulting in traumatic condition (Penal Code section 273d) was a crime of moral turpitude and was properly used for impeachment in the instant case.id: 12841
Failing to return to a place of confinement/escape, is a crime of moral turpitude.Escape under Penal Code section 4530, subdivision (c) (one who fails to return to a place of confinement) is a crime of moral turpitude and may be used for purposes of impeachment.id: 12843
Felony child endangerment is not a crime involving moral turpitude for impeachment purposes.Felony child endangerment under Penal Code section 273a, subd. (1), is not a crime of moral turpitude. Therefore, impeachment by use of that prior conviction was improper.id: 12844
Felony drunk driving with three priors within seven years is a crime involving moral turpitude for impeachment purposes.Defendant argued that his prior felony conviction of driving while under the influence in violation of Vehicle Code section 23175 is not a crime involving moral turpitude. However, defendant was properly impeached with evidence of his prior conviction as driving under the influence with three or more priors within seven years of the instant offense is a crime involving moral turpitude under the prescription of <i>People v. Castro</i> (1985) 38 Cal.3d 301.id: 12845
Felony hit and run involves moral turpitude for Castro purposes.The offense of felony hit and run involves moral turpitude under the prescription of <i>People v. Castro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 301.</i> Therefore, the trial court did not err in admitting defendant's prior conviction for purposes of impeachment.id: 12846
Felony indecent exposure is a crime involving moral turpitude and may be used for impeachment.The felony of indecent exposure is a crime of moral turpitude, and a prior conviction of this crime is admissible without limitation for purposes of impeachment.id: 12847
Felony vandalism is a crime involving moral turpitude for purposes of impeachment.Felony vandalism under Penal Code section 594 is a crime involving moral turpitude. Moreover, the court did not err in refusing to exclude the prior under Evidence Code section 352. Although the vandalism conviction was 10 years old, defendant had not led a legally blameless life in the interim. Further, there was no danger that the jury might link the prior conviction to the instant charges where the jurors did not learn the facts underlying the prior conviction. The prior conviction was properly admitted.id: 12848
Firing a gun at a dwelling house is a crime of moral turpitude.A conviction of Penal Code section 246 (discharging a firearm at an inhabited dwelling house) is a crime of moral turpitude and therefore admissible for purposes of impeachment.id: 12849
Spousal battery involves moral turpitude and the prior conviction was properly admitted to impeach defendant's testimony.Defendant's prior conviction of spousal battery in violation of Penal Code section 273.5 is one that involved moral turpitude and was therefore properly used to impeach his testimony.id: 12850
Threatening someone's safety is a crime of moral turpitude for purposes of impeachment.Penal Code section 422 prohibits threatening injury of another where the victim understands the statement to be a threat and fears for his or her safety or that of others. Section 422 is a crime of moral turpitude, and the trial court did not err by permitting defendant to be impeached with his prior conviction of that section.id: 12851
About Pat Ford
Pat Ford is a criminal defense lawyer in San Diego who works on appeals in some of the most difficult cases around the state. He has a great record for success and integrity. Pat has also published a criminal case law digest since 1984 that's used by judges and lawyers around the state. He also speaks and writes articles for criminal lawyers as well as consumers interested in the law. The consumer-related articles are intended to be informative but do not constitute legal advice.
Case of the Day
The case of the day summarizes a current case and is viewed by lawyers and judges around the state every day.
Exclusion of 18-25 year-olds from the youthful offender provisions of section 3051 did not violate equal protection. Penal Code section 3051 establishes a parole eligibility hearing for juveniles convicted of special circumstance murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Excluding persons 18-25 from the youthful offender parole hearing provision did not violate equal protection principles.id: 27245