Crimes of Moral Turpitude

Reckless driving.

Matter of C, 2 I. & N. Dec. 716 (BIA 1946) (conviction of reckless driving does not involve moral turpitude) (dictum).

False driver’s license, possession.

Montero-Ubri v. INS, 229 F.3d 319 (1st Cir. 2000) (Massachusetts offense of possession of a false driver’s license, in violation of Mass.Gen.Laws, c. 90 § 24B, does not constitute a crime involving moral turpitude).

Driving without consent of owner.

Matter of D, 1 I. & N. Dec. 143 (BIA 1941) (driving an automobile without the consent of the owner in violation of former California Vehicle Code § 503 is not a crime involving moral turpitude).

            Hit and run.  While the Fifth Circuit has found that the Texas offense of failing to stop and render aid to an injured person was a CMT[179] this arguably should not be the case where the statute of conviction is violated merely by failing to stop to give identifying information, rather than aiding the injured, or if the statute applies even where there is only damage to property, rather than personal injury.  The Ninth Circuit held that a conviction of leaving the scene of an accident, even one resulting in bodily injury or death, without leaving identifying information, was not a CMT, because the minimum conduct punishable under the California statute was merely failing to provide certain types of information, even where there was no injury to persons.[180] 

Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. Jan. 14, 2008) (California conviction of leaving the scene of an accident resulting in bodily injury or death, in violation of Vehicle Code § 20001(a) is not categorically a crime involving moral turpitude for purposes of deportation for two or more CMTs, under INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(ii), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii));

Garcia-Maldonado v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 284 (5th Cir. Jun. 29, 2007) (Texas conviction of failure to stop and render aid under Texas Transportation Code § 550.021 is a CMT for immigration purposes; “subsection of section 550.21 that criminalizes failure to render aid proscribes behavior that runs contrary to accepted societal duties.”)  NOTE: The statute of conviction does not require any intent. The court seems to imply a knowledge element, but does not cite any statutory language or cases that require knowledge.

Cf., Tate v. State Bar of Texas, 920 S.W.2d 727 (Ct.App.- Houston 1996) (failure to stop and/or provide information and/or render aid, in violation of Tex. Trans. Code § 550.021 does not “per se” involve moral turpitude for disbarment purposes).

Joy riding is NOT held to be a crime involving moral turpitude, when no intent to deprive the owner permanently of the property was required as an essential element of the offense.

Matter of P, 2 I. & N. Dec. 887 (BIA 1947) (conviction of “joy-riding” in violation of Canada Criminal Code § 285(3) does not involve moral turpitude);

Matter of H, 2 I. & N. Dec. 864 (BIA 1947);

Matter of M, 2 I. & N. Dec. 686 (BIA 1946) (conviction of  “joy-riding” in violation of Canada Criminal Code § 285(3) does not involve moral turpitude), citing Matter of C, 56172/434 (Oct. 14, 1944).

[179] Garcia-Maldonado v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 284 (5th Cir. Jun. 29, 2007).

[180] Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. Jan. 14, 2008).