Opinion ID: 1248298
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: prior convictions of the prosecutrix

Text: At trial, defense counsel sought to impeach the prosecutrix by questioning her regarding a previous guilty plea to three fraudulent check charges. The judge refused to allow appellant's attorney to cross-examine the prosecutrix on the charges, ruling that these were not crimes of moral turpitude. We disagree. S.C. Code Ann. § 34-11-60 (1987) provides that it is unlawful to draw or utter a fraudulent check. An element of the crime is the intent to defraud. Any crime in which fraud is an ingredient is a crime of moral turpitude. In re Sipes , 377 S.E. (2d) 574 (S.C. 1989); State v. Horton , 271 S.C. 413, 414, 248 S.E. (2d) 263 (1970). A conviction for uttering a fraudulent check by its very terms recognizes that an element of fraud is involved. Accordingly, there is no question that a fraudulent check conviction is one for a crime of moral turpitude and is therefore proper impeachment material. Further, refusal to allow impeachment on these charges was not harmless error. The appellant relied solely on the defense of consent. There was little physical evidence establishing that an attack had occurred; witness credibility was therefore a major factor. We hold that the judge erred in disallowing impeachment of the prosecutrix for her fraudulent check convictions.