Crime of Moral Turpitude

From the Law Office of Alison Grinter in Dallas, Texas

"Crime of Moral Turpitude" is a legal term of art that has no set statutory definition. Generally, they are crimes involving dishonesty, violence against the weak, and sexual depravity. Courts make the determination as to whether an offense is a crime of moral turpitude on a case-by-case basis, but there are several offenses that have been judged to be explicity included. Thease are not exhaustive lists, but rather guidelines in determining what might be construed to be a crime of moral turpitude.

Contents 1 Effects of "Crime of Moral Turpitude" Conviction 1.1 Impeachment of Testimony 1.2 Consequences for Immigration 2 Offenses that have been judged to be Crimes of Moral Turpitude 3 Offenses that have been judged NOT to be Crimes of Moral Turpitude 4 Notes

Effects of "Crime of Moral Turpitude" Conviction

Impeachment of Testimony

Conviction of a crime of moral turpitude can be used against a witness for 10 years after conviction or release from confinement (whichever is later) in any proceeding to discredit their testimony. This means that if you are convicted of, for example,  misdemeanor theft, the conviction can be used against you in a completely unrelated case like a divorce or custody hearing, for the next 10 years to discredit your testimony by showing that you are a dishonest person.

RULE 609. IMPEACHMENT BY EVIDENCE OF CONVICTION OF CRIME

(a) General Rule. For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted if elicited from the witness or established by public record but only if the crime was a felony or involved moral turpitude, regardless of punishment, and the court determines that the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to a party.

(b) Time Limit. Evidence of a conviction under this rule is not admissible if a period of more than ten years has elapsed since the date of the conviction or of the release of the witness from the confinement imposed for that conviction, whichever is the later date, unless the court determines, in the interests of justice, that the probative value of the conviction supported by specific facts and circumstances substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect.

(c) Effect of Pardon, Annulment, or Certificate of Rehabilitation. Evidence of a conviction is not admissible under this rule if:

(1) based on the finding of the rehabilitation of the person convicted, the conviction has been the subject of a pardon, annulment, certificate of rehabilitation, or other equivalent procedure, and that person has not been convicted of a subsequent crime which was classified as a felony or involved moral turpitude, regardless of punishment;

(2) probation has been satisfactorily completed for the crime for which the person was convicted, and that person has not been convicted of a subsequent crime which was classified as a felony or involved moral turpitude, regardless of punishment; or

(3) based on a finding of innocence, the conviction has been the subject of a pardon, annulment, or other equivalent procedure.

(d) Juvenile Adjudications. Evidence of juvenile adjudications is not admissible, except for proceedings conducted pursuant to Title III, Family Code, in which the witness is a party, under this rule unless required to be admitted by the Constitution of the United States or Texas.

(e) Pendency of Appeal. Pendency of an appeal renders evidence of a conviction inadmissible.

(f) Notice. Evidence of a conviction is not admissible if after timely written request by the adverse party specifying the witness or witnesses, the proponent fails to give to the adverse party sufficient advance written notice of intent to use such evidence to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to contest the use of such evidence.

Consequences for Immigration

Federal statutes use the term "Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude" to indicate crimes which can can lead a non-citizen resident alien to become deportable. The Federal statutes don't give a list of these crimes, but it appears to mean the same types of crimes, possibly using the same caselaw foundation, as the State. If you are a non-citizen resident alien and you have been charged with an offense which may be considered a crime of moral turpitude, it is in your best interest to consult with an immigration attorney as soon as possible. 

Offenses that have been judged to be Crimes of Moral Turpitude

• Sexual assault of a child - In the Matter of GMP, 909 S.W.2d 198 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 1995, no pet.).
• Lying to a police officer - Lape v. State, 893 S.W.2d 949 (Tex. App.–Houston 14th Dist.] 1994, pet. ref ’d; (filing false report) Robertson v. State, 685 S.W.2d 488 (Tex. App–Fort Worth 1985, no pet.) (“no clear cut criteria” for moral turpitude).
• Mail fraud - State Bar v. Heard, 603 S.W.2d 829 (Tex. 1980).
• Tax evasion - In re Humphreys, 880 S.W.2d 402 (Tex. 1994) (whether a case involves moral turpitude is a question of law); In the Matter of Birdwell, 20 S.W.3d 685 (Tex. 2000).
• Prostitution - Holgin v. State, 480 S.W.2d 405 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Husting v. State, 790 S.W.2d 121 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 1990, no pet.).
• Purchase of a child - In the Matter of Thacker, 881 S.W.2d 307 (Tex. 1994).
• Indecent exposure - Polk v. State, 865 S.W.2d 627 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth 1993, pet. ref ’d).
• Failure to stop & render aid - Tate v. State Bar of Texas, 920 S.W.2d 727 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, writ denied).
• Theft - Milligan v. State, 554 S.W.2d 192 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977).
• Aggravated assault - by Jackson v. State, 50 S.W.3d 579, 591 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth 2001, pet. ref ’d); a man on a woman Ludwig v. State, 969 S.W.2d 22 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth 1998, pet. ref ’d); Hardeman v. State, 868 S.W.2d 404 (Tex. App.–Austin 1993), pet. dism’d, 891 S.W.2d 960 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995).
• Assault by a male on a female - Trippell v. State, 535 S.W.2d 178 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976).
• Communicating a false alarm - Op.Tex. Att’y Gen. DM 96-140 (1996).
• Murder and indecent exposure - Polk v. State, 865 S.W.2d 627 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth 1993, pet. ref ’d). Swindling Sherman v. State, 62 S.W.2d 146 (Tex. Crim. App. 1933).
• Bank fraud - Searcy v. State Bar of Texas, 604 S.W.2d 256 (Tex. 1980).
  

Offenses that have been judged NOT to be Crimes of Moral Turpitude

• Felony drug possession In the Matter of Lock, 54 S.W.3d 305 (Tex. 2001)
• Delivery of marijuana Hernandez v. State, 976 S.W.2d 753 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1998), pet.ref ’d, 981 S.W.2d 652 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).
• Misprision Duncan v. Board of Disciplinary Appeals, 898 S.W.2d 759 (Tex. 1995) (crimesinvolving moral turpitude are those that involve dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation,deliberate violence, or that reflect adversely on a person’s honesty or trustworthiness).
• Aggravated assault with SBI Turton v. State Bar of Texas, 775 S.W.2d 712 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1989, writden.) (not on its face a felony involving moral turpitude—look into the circumstances of the offense to determine).
• Misdemeanor possession of marijuana Bell v. State, 620 S.W.2d 116 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981).
• Juvenile delinquency Rivas v. State, 501 S.W.2d 918 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973).
• Unlawfully carrying a weapon Trippell v. State, 535 S.W.2d 178 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976).
• Gambling Neill v. State, 258 S.W.2d 328 (Tex. Crim. App. 1953).
• Misdemeanor DWI Shipman v. State, 604 S.W.2d 182 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980); Janecka v. State, 937S.W.2d 456 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).
• Public intoxication Ochoa v. State, 481 S.W.2d 847 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972).
• Reckless conduct Patterson v. State, 783 S.W.2d 268 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 1989, pet.ref ’d).
• Assault Valdez v. State, 450 S.W.2d 624 (Tex. Crim. App. 1970).
• Disrupting the peace Garza v. State, 532 S.W.2d 624 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976).
• Criminal trespass Hutson v. State, 843 S.W.2d 106 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 1992, no pet.).
• Criminal mischief Gonzalez v. State, 648 S.W.2d 740 (Tex. App.–Beaumont 1983, no pet.).
• Soliciting bonding business Op. Tex. Att’y Gen. GA-299 (2005) (violations of Tex. Occ. Code §1704.304(soliciting bonding business in a police station, jail, prison, detention facility, or other place of detainment)).
  

Notes

The "Crime of Moral Turpitude" distinction is most important when dealing with misdemeanor offenses. Deferred Adjudication with a plea of nolo contendre, if available, can prevent the consequences by avoiding conviction.

Discuss this article with the Law Office of Alison Grinter