Page 1
Ninth Circuit:
Man Convicted of Voluntary Manslaughter Is Deportable
Judge Lee Says Offense, Under California Law, Entails Moral Turpitude
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Voluntary manslaughter, under California law, entails moral turpitude, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held yesterday in a case of first impression, giving the green light to the deportation of an alien who convicted of that felony.
Circuit Judge Kenneth Kiyul Lee wrote:
“Under federal immigration law, a non-citizen may be removed from the country if he has been convicted of a ‘crime involving moral turpitude’ (CIMT)….The question before us is whether voluntary manslaughter under California law qualifies as a CIMT. We hold that it does because voluntary manslaughter requires the defendant to cause the death of a person with intent to kill or with conscious disregard for life. We thus deny Jose Ortiz Narez’s petition challenging the Board of Immigration’s (BIA) final order of removal.”
1984 Conviction
Ortiz was convicted in 1984, pursuant to a guilty plea, of voluntary manslaughter, receiving a six-year prison sentence. (He was also was convicted, in 2002, of corporal punishment or injury of a child.)
The non-citizen argued that because Penal Code §192(a) defines voluntary manslaughter as an “unlawful killing of a human being without malice...upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion,” it lacks a mental element and therefore does not entail moral turpitude. Lee responded:
“The statute’s reference to ‘without malice’ merely explains that voluntary manslaughter involves mitigating circumstances (e.g.. adequate provocation) that negate the malice aforethought required for murder. It does not mean that voluntary manslaughter lacks any culpable mental state. To the contrary, a conscious disregard for life or specific intent to kill is still required.”
Meets Federal Criterion
This, he said, meets the federal definition of a CIMT which involves “either fraud or base, vile, and depraved conduct that shocks the public conscience.” The judge explained:
“…California’s voluntary manslaughter only requires recklessness, but the harm—the unlawful killing of a human—stands at the apex. We thus agree with the BIA’s determination that California’s voluntary manslaughter statute qualifies as a CIMT.”
The case is Narez v. Garland, 20-71416.
Copyright 2022, Metropolitan News Company