People v. WhitePeople v. White
BUCKLEY, J.
Following trial on an information alleging 18 counts of various offenses, appellants David Alman White and Tommy Carl Naus were convicted of a conspiracy to sell methamphetamine. (
In the published portion of this opinion we hold that a conviction of
We will affirm.
STATEMENT OF FACTS - DISCUSSION, II.†
.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .
III.
Is Shooting Into an Inhabited Dwelling a Crime of Moral Turpitude?
(1a) In a case of first impression, we are asked to decide whether shooting into an inhabited dwelling (
At trial, the prosecution was allowed to impeach White with his 1978 conviction of
(2a) “Pursuant to People v. Castro, supra, 38 Cal.3d 301, and subject to the trial court‘s discretion under Evidence Code section 352, only prior felony convictions that necessarily involve moral turpitude may be used to impeach a witness in a criminal proceeding. [Citation.] `Moral turpitude’ means a general `readiness to do evil’ [citation], i.e., `an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man.’ [Citations.] Castro makes no attempt to list or define those felonies which involve moral turpitude, but it makes clear that moral turpitude does not depend on dishonesty being an element of the felony. `[I]t is undeniable that a witness’ moral depravity of any kind has some “tendency in reason” [citation] to shake one‘s confidence in his honesty.‘”
One of the tenets of the Castro analysis is that in determining whether a crime is one of moral turpitude, a court must look only to the elements of the offense and decide whether its least adjudicated elements necessarily involve moral turpitude. Such limitation is made necessary by the confusion, surprise and prejudice to the defendant engendered by examination of underlying specific and often extraneous facts. (Cf. People v. Castro, supra, 38 Cal.3d at pp. 316-317.)
(1b) Seizing upon the phrase “least adjudicated elements,” White makes a disingenuous argument. He contends that since a person could be convicted of
For purposes of
(1c) We note that
It is elementary, yet essential to this analysis, to note that inhabited is defined as “lived in.” (Webster‘s New World Dict. (2d college ed. 1982) p. 724.) By definition then, inhabitants are generally in or around the premises. From this, we can readily perceive the inherent danger in one firing a weapon at an inhabited dwelling. Such an act is done with reckless disregard of probable consequences (someone being struck). (People v. Chavira (1970) 3 Cal. App.3d 988, 993 [83 Cal. Rptr. 851].)
Since
He next makes the rather startling argument that if a person were killed as a result of a shot fired pursuant to
Addressing his last conclusion first, we disagree that the most likely crime resultant from a death caused by firing into an inhabited dwelling would be involuntary manslaughter.
We conclude that under the principles set forth in Watson, a person who demonstrates such wanton disregard for the life of another by firing shots into an inhabited dwelling could be convicted of second degree murder should someone die as a result. Castro defines moral turpitude as a readiness to do evil. (38 Cal.3d at p. 314.) A “second degree murder conviction certainly demonstrates a readiness to do evil, murder being the most evil of crimes.” (People v. Littrel (1986) 185 Cal. App.3d 699, 702 [230 Cal. Rptr. 83].)
It has been held that possession of an illegal weapon is a crime of moral turpitude (People v. Garrett (1987) 195 Cal. App.3d 795, 799-800 [241 Cal. Rptr. 10])6 and that possession of a firearm by a felon is a crime involving moral turpitude. (People v. Littrel, supra, 185 Cal. App.3d at p. 703.) Possession of such weapons was determined by each court to involve a readiness to do evil. (Garrett, supra, 195 Cal. App.3d at p. 800; Littrel, supra, 185 Cal. App.3d at p. 703.)
It would be anomalous to hold here that the “evil” actually done (shooting at an inhabited dwelling) was not also a crime of moral turpitude.
White cites certain cases which hold, as to the specific crime presented, that moral turpitude does not exist.7 Drawing from the cases he cites, White argues that an element of the crime must involve dishonesty or significant
However, in People v. Lang (1989) 49 Cal.3d 991, 1010 [264 Cal. Rptr. 386, 782 P.2d 627], the Supreme Court held that escape by a convicted felon without force is a crime involving moral turpitude because it necessarily involves some form of stealth, deceit, or breach of trust and the potential for violence when an escaped felon is recaptured. Moral turpitude was found even though an injury to another or the likelihood of injury to another was not an element of the crime.
Although the least adjudicated elements of
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
Stone (W.A.), Acting P.J., and Dibiaso, J., concurred.
Notes
“Any person who shall maliciously and willfully discharge a firearm at an inhabited dwelling house, occupied building, occupied motor vehicle, occupied aircraft, inhabited housecar, as defined in Section 362 of the Vehicle Code, or inhabited camper, as defined in Section 243 of the Vehicle Code, is guilty of a felony, and upon conviction shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for three, five, or seven years, or by imprisonment in the county jail for a term of not less than six months and not exceeding one year.
“As used in this section, `inhabited’ means currently being used for dwelling purposes, whether occupied or not.”
Although the above reflects the current version of Penal Code section 246, the statute in effect in 1978 was, for all purposes pertinent here, identical.