Crimes of Moral Turpitude

Voluntary manslaughter has always been held to be CMT.[52]  Formerly, involuntary manslaughter was held not to be CMT.  More recently, involuntary manslaughter has been held to involve moral turpitude if a reckless[53] mens rea, or greater, was required as an essential element.  Cases have been inconsistent where the statute of conviction does not distinguish between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, sometimes improperly resorting to the record of conviction in search of facts for use in classifying the offense as CMT.

It is important to examine state judicial decisions to determine the essential elements of a state offense, and the minimum conduct and intent necessary to support a conviction.  For example, if an offense requires mere negligence, it cannot be considered a crime involving moral turpitude.[54]

[52] 9 U.S. Dep’t of State, Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) § 40.21(a) N.2.3-3(a)(10)(a).

[53] See § 8.15, supra.

[54] 9 U.S. Dep’t of State, Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) § 40.21(a) N.2.3-3(a)(10)(b)(“A conviction for the statutory offense of vehicular homicide or other involuntary manslaughter which only requires a showing of negligence will not involve moral turpitude even if it appears the defendant in fact acted recklessly.”). See People v. Bussel, 97 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1 (Jan. 17, 2002) (ordinary negligence will support a misdemeanor California vehicular manslaughter conviction); In re Dennis B., 18 Cal.3d 687 (1976).