Opinion ID: 1325022
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: bookmaking: crime of moral turpitude?

Text: It is firmly established by the decisions of this Court, as well as those of federal and other state jurisdictions, that evidence of a witness's prior conviction may be introduced to impeach his credibility. It is equally firmly established that the conviction must relate to crimes involving moral turpitude. State v. Yates , 280 S.C. 29, 310 S.E. (2d) 805 (1982); State v. Millings , 247 S.C. 52, 145 S.E. (2d) 422 (1965). We are required here for the first time to determine whether bookmaking is a crime involving moral turpitude. In its brief the State does not seriously contend that it is. Moral turpitude was defined by this Court in Yates as: ... an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellow man, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man ... 280 S.C. at 37, 310 S.E. (2d) at 810. Our definition in Yates , found at 58 C.J.S. Moral , Moral Turpitude (1948), was earlier approved in State v. Horton , 271 S.C. 413, 248 S.E. (2d) 263 (1978). Courts of other states that have considered whether the crime of gaming (which includes that of bookmaking) is one involving moral turpitude have uniformly held that it is not. See, e.g., Hofferman v. Simmons , 32 N.Y.S. (2d) 244, 177 Misc. 962 (1941); Parr v. Commonwealth , 198 Va. 721, 96 S.E. (2d) 160 (1957); Neill v. State , 158 Tex. Crim. 551, 258 S.W. (2d) 328 (1953); Curtis v. State , 224 Ga. 870, 165 S.E. (2d) 150 (1968). In Parr the Supreme Court of Virginia, relying upon a definition of moral turpitude identical to that in Yates and Horton , held that evidence of defendant's conviction for gambling was inadmissible for the purpose of impeaching his credibility. The court reasoned Our conclusion is that while the conduct of a 'numbers game' is contrary to the public policy of this State and our standard of morals, it is not per se immoral or inherently evil and does not involve moral turpitude. To adopt the opposite view would lead to the conclusion that other States legalize and permit operations which are per se immoral and inherently evil. It is inconceivable that they would do so. 96 S.E. (2d) at 164. Bookmaking is denominated a misdemeanor by S.C. Code Ann. § 16-19-130 (1976). We hold that bookmaking, while a violation of law, is not a crime involving moral turpitude.