State v. Bailey, 21334
| Decision Date | 20 November 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 21334,21334 |
| Citation | 272 S.E.2d 439,275 S.C. 444 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Ray BAILEY, Appellant. |
Deputy Appellate Defender Vance J. Bettis, of S. C. Commission of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod and Asst. Attys. Gen. Kay G. Crowe and Nan L. Black, Columbia, and Asst. Sol. J. Paul Detrick, Walterboro, for respondent.
Appellant was convicted of disturbing a school and assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature. He contends that error was committed by the lower court in admitting testimony concerning a prior conviction for assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature. We agree.
Evidence of other crimes is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406, 118 S.E. 803 (1925). The State contends, however, that the testimony in question was admissible as a crime of moral turpitude for the purpose of impeaching appellant's credibility. See State v. Lee, 269 S.C. 421, 237 S.E.2d 768 (1977). The crime of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature does not, however, invariably constitue a crime of moral turpitude, since that determination depends on the facts of each particular case. See United States ex rel. Zaffarano v. Corsi, 63 F.2d 757 (2d Cir. 1933); Burford v. Commonwealth, 179 Va. 752, 20 S.E.2d 509 (1942).
Proof of the nature of a prior conviction must necessarily be confined to the inherent nature of the crime as defined by law and particularized by the indictment. More thorough proof of the underlying circumstances would possibly require an extensive hearing on collateral matters and therefore be adverse to the uniform and efficient administration of law. See United States ex rel. Manzella v. Zimmerman, 71 F.Supp. 534 (E.D.Pa.1947). Since the crime of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature does not necessarily constitute a crime of moral turpitude, and since the indictment for the prior conviction was not produced for review by the trial court, appellant's conviction must be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial. See State v. Harvey, 268 S.E.2d 587 (S.C.1980).
I respectfully dissent and would simply hold that assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature is not a crime of moral turpitude. I do so, well appreciating the fact that occasionally...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lakin v. Rund, Docket No. 323695.
...to hold that even aggravated assault and battery invariably constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude. State v. Bailey, 275 S.C. 444, 446, 272 S.E.2d 439 (1980). Alabama courts have held that " battery does not involve moral turpitude. Moral turpitude signifies an inherent quality of ba......
-
State v. Hall
...to resisting arrest, we hold that whether it is a crime of moral turpitude depends upon the facts of the case. Cf. State v. Bailey, 275 S.C. 444, 272 S.E.2d 439 (1980) (whether assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature is a crime of moral turpitude depends upon the facts of the ca......
-
Baddourah v. McMaster
...of the crime as defined by law as well as the particularized facts contained in the indictment. See, e.g. , State v. Bailey, 275 S.C. 444, 446, 272 S.E.2d 439, 440 (1980) (observing whether assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature is a crime of moral turpitude depends upon the fa......
-
Hunter v. Staples
...should have submitted the burglary indictment to the judge so that he could rule on the dishonesty question. Cf. State v. Bailey, 275 S.C. 444, 272 S.E.2d 439 (1980) (pre-Rules of Evidence case) (whether assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature is a crime of moral turpitude depen......