State v. Lilly, 21840
Decision Date | 04 January 1983 |
Docket Number | No. 21840,21840 |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. James Paul LILLY, Jr., Appellant. |
Robert M. McInnis, of Wheless & McInnis, North Myrtle Beach, for appellant.
Atty. Gen., Daniel R. McLeod and Asst. Atty. Gen., Martha L. McElveen, Columbia, and Sol., Jim Dunn, Conway, for respondent.
Appellant was convicted of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. He was sentenced to ten years, suspended upon the service of three years' imprisonment and three years' probation. Appellant alleges the trial court erred in admitting evidence of appellant's prior conviction of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. We disagree and affirm the lower court judgment.
The trial court allowed the prosecution to question appellant concerning his prior conviction on the ground the crime was one of moral turpitude and, therefore, proper impeaching evidence. Appellant argues that possession of marijuana with intent to distribute is not 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 to 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, 227, 268 S.E.2d 587, 588, at fn. 1 (1981). Simple possession of marijuana is not a crime of moral turpitude. Harvey. Unlike simple possession, however, possession with intent to distribute involves the duty which a person owes to other people and to society in general. Cf. Lewis v. State, 243 Ga. 443, 254 S.E.2d 830 (1979).
We hold that possession of marijuana with intent to distribute is a crime of moral turpitude; therefore, the court correctly allowed the prosecution to attempt to impeach appellant with evidence of his earlier conviction for this crime. Contra. Harvey.
Appellant's other exception does not require discussion because it does not present a question of precedential value or indicate an error of law in the lower court proceeding. Rule 23, Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court.
We affirm the lower court judgment.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Conduct of Chase, In re
...after "exhaustive research" it could find no case declaring possession of marijuana to involve moral turpitude. In State v. Lilly, 278 S.C. 499, 299 S.E.2d 329 (1983), the court distinguished between possession of marijuana, a crime not involving moral turpitude and possession with intent t......
-
State v. Ball, 22705
...State v. McFarlane, 279 S.C. 327, 306 S.E.2d 611 (1983) [criminal sexual conduct with a minor (any degree) ]; State v. Lilly, 278 S.C. 499, 299 S.E.2d 329 (1983) [possession of marijuana with intent to distribute]; State v. Yates, 280 S.C. 29, 310 S.E.2d 805 (1982) [arson]; Jamison v. Howar......
-
Foye v. State
...of marijuana with intent to distribute and possession of cocaine were considered crimes involving moral turpitude. See State v. Lilly, 278 S.C. 499, 299 S.E.2d 329 (1983); State v. Major, 301 S.C. 181, 391 S.E.2d 235 (1990). However, evidence of these convictions was not per se admissible. ......
-
Merritt v. Grant, 0422
...erred in viewing the crime of selling narcotics as one not involving moral turpitude. Our Supreme Court held in State v. Lilly, 278 S.C. 499, 299 S.E.2d 329 (1983), that a conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute is an offense of moral turpitude. The error, however, ......