§
In re Leal

31 Cited authorities

  1. Montana v. Egelhoff

    518 U.S. 37 (1996)   Cited 1,337 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the exclusion of even relevant evidence does not violate due process unless it implicates a "fundamental principle of justice"

  2. Knapik v. Ashcroft

    384 F.3d 84 (3d Cir. 2004)   Cited 89 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “the BIA did not act unreasonably in concluding New York's first degree reckless endangerment statute is a crime involving moral turpitude”

  3. Bobadilla v. Holder

    679 F.3d 1052 (8th Cir. 2012)   Cited 33 times
    Finding the petitioner's conviction of false identification to a police officer in violation of Minnesota state law to not be a CIMT when applying the modified categorical approach

  4. Ruiz–Lopez v. Holder

    682 F.3d 513 (6th Cir. 2012)   Cited 23 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Fleeing from police while driving "in a manner indicating a wanton or willful disregard for the lives or property of others"

  5. Keungne v. U.S.

    561 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2009)   Cited 26 times
    Holding that criminal recklessness involves moral turpitude

  6. Idy v. Holder

    674 F.3d 111 (1st Cir. 2012)   Cited 17 times
    Holding that New Hampshire’s crime of "reckless conduct," defined as "recklessly engag[ing] in conduct which places or may place another in danger of serious bodily injury," constitutes a CIMT

  7. Franklin v. I.N.S.

    72 F.3d 571 (8th Cir. 1995)   Cited 34 times
    Upholding BIA determination that involuntary man-slaughter, where alien "recklessly cause[d] the death of her child by consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk to life," is a crime involving moral turpitude

  8. U.S. v. Hernandez-Castellanos

    287 F.3d 876 (9th Cir. 2002)   Cited 23 times
    Holding that "[f]or a crime based on recklessness to be a crime of violence under § 16(b), the crime must require recklessness as to, or conscious disregard of, a risk that physical force will be used against another, not merely the risk that another might be injured"

  9. Hernandez-Perez v. Holder

    569 F.3d 345 (8th Cir. 2009)   Cited 9 times
    Explaining that a nonpermanent alien is not eligible for cancellation of removal if he has been convicted of a CIMT

  10. State v. Doss

    192 Ariz. 408 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 19 times
    In Doss, the jury instruction stated, "[e]ach of the charges of endangerment requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial risk that [the defendant's] conduct could cause imminent death of the person named in each charge."

  11. Section 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

    8 U.S.C. § 1182   Cited 9,902 times   69 Legal Analyses
    Holding deportable aliens who have been convicted of "crimes involving moral turpitude"

  12. Section 1229b - Cancellation of removal; adjustment of status

    8 U.S.C. § 1229b   Cited 5,203 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Granting the Attorney General discretion to cancel the removal of an alien who has “been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty by a ... parent who is ... a United States citizen”

  13. Section 15.05 - Culpability; definitions of culpable mental states

    N.Y. Penal Law § 15.05   Cited 805 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Defining “recklessly”

  14. Section 13-702 - First time felony offenders; sentencing; definition

    Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-702   Cited 784 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing an aggravated sentence "if one or more of the circumstances alleged to be in aggravation of the crime are found to be true by the trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt"

  15. Section 2901.21 - Criminal liability, culpability

    Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.21   Cited 716 times
    Stating when an offense is a strict-liability offense

  16. Section 8.04 - Intoxication

    Tex. Pen. Code § 8.04   Cited 304 times
    Providing that "[v]oluntary intoxication does not constitute a defense to the commission of crime"

  17. Section 39-11-503 - Intoxication

    Tenn. Code § 39-11-503   Cited 102 times

    (a) Except as provided in subsection (c), intoxication itself is not a defense to prosecution for an offense. However, intoxication, whether voluntary or involuntary, is admissible in evidence, if it is relevant to negate a culpable mental state. (b) If recklessness establishes an element of an offense and the person is unaware of a risk because of voluntary intoxication, the person's unawareness is immaterial in a prosecution for that offense. (c) Intoxication itself does not constitute a mental

  18. Section 2C:2-8 - Intoxication

    N.J. Stat. § 2C:2-8   Cited 92 times
    Allowing evidence of intoxication to negate such states of mind

  19. Section 775.051 - Voluntary intoxication; not a defense; evidence not admissible for certain purposes; exception

    Fla. Stat. § 775.051   Cited 88 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Abolishing voluntary intoxication defense effective October 1, 1999

  20. Section 16-3-4 - Intoxication

    Ga. Code § 16-3-4   Cited 66 times

    (a) A person shall not be found guilty of a crime when, at the time of the act, omission, or negligence constituting the crime, the person, because of involuntary intoxication, did not have sufficient mental capacity to distinguish between right and wrong in relation to such act. (b) Involuntary intoxication means intoxication caused by: (1) Consumption of a substance through excusable ignorance; or (2) The coercion, fraud, artifice, or contrivance of another person. (c) Voluntary intoxication shall