Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantdeportation
defendantdeportation

Related Cases

United States v. Galicia-Delgado
View Case »
Navarro v. Mukasey
View Case »
American Sociological Association v. Chertoff
View Case »
Aybar-Alejo v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Saleh v. Holder
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Griffo v. McCandless

Facts

The defendant, an alien who had been in the United States since the age of two, was charged with burglary and later with aggravated assault and battery. Although he had been sentenced to more than one year of imprisonment for these offenses, the court noted that the assault and battery charge did not necessarily imply moral turpitude. The defendant's family, including his siblings, were citizens, and he had married a native-born citizen.

The defendant, an alien who had been in the United States since the age of two, was charged with burglary and later with aggravated assault and battery. Although he had been sentenced to more than one year of imprisonment for these offenses, the court noted that the assault and battery charge did not necessarily imply moral turpitude. The defendant's family, including his siblings, were citizens, and he had married a native-born citizen.

Issue

Did the charge of aggravated assault and battery constitute an act of moral turpitude under the Act of February 5, 1917, thereby justifying deportation?

Did the charge of aggravated assault and battery constitute an act of moral turpitude under the Act of February 5, 1917, thereby justifying deportation?

Rule

Under the Act of February 5, 1917, an alien may be deported if convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude and sentenced to more than one year of imprisonment. The moral turpitude must be inherent in the charge and evidenced by the record.

Under the Act of February 5, 1917, an alien may be deported if convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude and sentenced to more than one year of imprisonment. The moral turpitude must be inherent in the charge and evidenced by the record.

Analysis

The court analyzed whether aggravated assault and battery inherently implied moral turpitude. It concluded that while burglary does involve moral turpitude, assault and battery may not necessarily do so. The court emphasized that the determination of moral turpitude must be based solely on the record of conviction, and since the record did not conclusively establish moral turpitude for the assault and battery charge, the court ruled against deportation.

The court analyzed whether aggravated assault and battery inherently implied moral turpitude. It concluded that while burglary does involve moral turpitude, assault and battery may not necessarily do so. The court emphasized that the determination of moral turpitude must be based solely on the record of conviction, and since the record did not conclusively establish moral turpitude for the assault and battery charge, the court ruled against deportation.

Conclusion

The court submitted an order that discharged the defendant without day, concluding that the charge of assault and battery did not imply moral turpitude and thus did not warrant deportation.

The court submitted an order that discharged the defendant without day, concluding that the charge of assault and battery did not imply moral turpitude and thus did not warrant deportation.

Who won?

The defendant prevailed in the case because the court found insufficient evidence of moral turpitude to justify deportation under the applicable law.

The defendant prevailed in the case because the court found insufficient evidence of moral turpitude to justify deportation under the applicable law.

You must be