Court Opinion

ID: 9847099
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:53:53.974227+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:00.872185
License: Public Domain

Finney, Justice,
dissenting.
LAW/ANALYSIS
I. POSSESSION OF COCAINE AS A CRIME OF MORAL TURPITUDE
“Moral turpitude involves an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the social duties which a man owes to his fellow man or society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man.” State v. Harvey, 275 S.C. 225, 268 S.E. (2d) 587, 588 n. 1 (1980). In determining whether a crime is one involving moral turpitude, the Court focuses primarily on the duty to society and fellowman which is breached by the commission of the crime. State v. Ball, 292 S.C. 71, 354 S.E. (2d) 906 (1987).
Crimes which involve primarily self-destructive behavior generally do not involve moral turpitude. Ball, supra; see, e.g., State v. Morris, 289 S.C. 294, 345 S.E. (2d) 477 (1986) [bookmaking not a crime of moral turpitude]; State v. Harvey, 275 S.C. 225, 268 S.E. (2d) 587 (1980) [simple possession of marijuana not a crime of moral turpitude]; State v. LaBarge, 275 S.C. 168, 268 S.E. (2d) 278 (1980) [public drunkenness, disorderly conduct not crimes of moral turpitude]; Taylor v. *187State, 258 S.C. 369, 188 S.E. (2d) 850 (1972) [possession of an unlawful weapon not a crime of moral turpitude].
Possession of cocaine, like possession of marijuana, relates more to self-destructive behavior than to the defendant’s duty to other people or to society in general. Ball, supra.
The reasons articulated by the majority for overruling Ball, in the logical sequence of things, could apply to alcohol, marijuana, even nicotine, caffeine and other drugs which produce harmful effects. Alcohol and marijuana have “torn at the very fabric of our nation.” Statistics show that, due to abuse arising from the possession and consumption of alcohol and marijuana, “[families have been ripped apart, minds have been ruined, and lives have been lost. It is common knowledge that the drug[s] is [are] highly addictive and potentially fatal. The addictive nature of the drug[s], combined with its [their] expense, have caused our prisons to swell...” In addition, highway fatalities directly attributable to the abuse of alcohol as a result of its possession and consumption, under the majority’s holding, would mandate an immediate reclassification of alcohol followed by other drugs which meet this test.
Under the majority’s analysis, any prior possession of cocaine would be the grounds for impeachment on the basis of moral turpitude. I would affirm the holding of State v. Ball, supra.
II. INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE OF THE ACCUSED’S GOOD CHARACTER
Since the overruling of Ball is inapplicable to this appellant, the majority, in an effort to get away from its sociological theorem and hang its hat on some semblance of legal theory, determines that appellant’s prior conviction for possession of cocaine is admissible because he opened the door.
This determination is based upon two reasons; first, the appellant denied that he frequented the notorious Quarters.1 Second, on direct examination, the appellant answered “[n]o sir” to an inquiry as to whether he sold drugs on April 28, *1881988, and then followed up by saying that he did not sell drugs.
When stripped of all of the legal niceties, the bottom line appears to be that the majority would allow the introduction of this evidence because the appellant visited the Quarters. In my opinion, the articulated basis is totally insufficient (1) to damn an entire community; and (2) to allow the introduction of clearly prejudicial testimony.
I would hold that appellant did not place his good character into issue such that a prior conviction for possession of cocaine could be introduced into evidence.

 The record reveals only a bare assertion by the police that the Quarters was an area of illicit drug activity.