California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Castro, 211 Cal.Rptr. 719, 38 Cal.3d 301, 696 P.2d 111 (Cal. 1985):
Such an imprecise standard will cause confusion among the trial courts. Moreover, trial judges will apply their own personal views as to the mores of the community 2 in deciding whether an offense involves moral turpitude. (See United States v. Zimmerman, supra, 71 F.Supp. at p. 537.) This will inevitably lead to inconsistent results and will require the reversal of many convictions.
The experience of one of our sister states should be a lesson for this court. Although Connecticut employed the moral turpitude standard in this context for 45 years, that state eventually abandoned it because of the "uncertainty in the meaning and application of the phrase 'moral turpitude' ...." (Heating Acceptance Corporation v. Patterson (1965), 152 Conn. 467, 208 A.2d 341, 343-344.) The Connecticut court noted that the trial courts in that state had encountered considerable difficulty in ruling on the admissibility of prior convictions where the presence or absence of moral turpitude had to be determined. "[A] definite rule, of certain application, would eliminate problems and difficulties at the trial level, on the part of both court and counsel, which in turn lead to mistakes and costly appellate procedure, if not to actual injustice." (Id., 208 A.2d at p. 343.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.