(B)

Attempted Recklessness.  The Third Circuit has held that, even though a conviction under the New York reckless endangerment statute constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude, a conviction of “attempted reckless endangerment” does not involve moral turpitude.  The court found that it is logically impossible for a person to intend to commit a criminally reckless act, and therefore that the “crime of attempted reckless endangerment is nonexistent since it is a nonintent offense.”[143]  Under this decision, a conviction of attempting to commit an offense with a mental element of recklessness would not constitute a CMT because the offense cannot exist.  The same reasoning would hold true for offenses requiring a lesser criminal intent than recklessness, e.g., negligence.

[143] Knapik v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 84, 91 (3d Cir. Sept. 17, 2004), citing People v. Trepanier, 84 A.D.2d 374, 380 (N.Y.App.Div. 1982).

BIA

CRIME OF MORAL TURPITUDE " RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT
Matter of Leal, 26 I. & N. Dec. 20 (BIA 2012) (Arizona conviction for violation of ARS 13-1201(a), recklessly endangering another person with a substantial risk of imminent death, is a CMT for immigration purposes, even though Arizonas definition of recklessness includes ignorance of risk resulting from voluntary intoxication).

CRIMES OF MORAL TURPITUDE " ESCAPE " HIGH SPEED FLIGHT FROM POLICE
Matter of Ruiz-Lopez, 25 I&N Dec. 551 (BIA 2011) (Washington conviction of driving a vehicle in a manner indicating a wanton or willful disregard for the lives or property of others while attempting to elude a pursuing police vehicle, in violation of RCW 46.61.024, is a crime involving moral turpitude, because reckless disregard is a sufficiently evil mental state).

First Circuit

CRIMES OF MORAL TURPITUDE"MENTAL STATE"RECKLESSNESS
Idy v. Holder, 674 F.3d 111 (1st Cir. Mar. 23, 2012) (New Hampshire conviction of reckless conduct, in violation of N.H.Rev.Stat. Ann. 631:3 [recklessly engages in conduct which places or may place another in danger of serious bodily injury where the defendant is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk] is a CMT).

CRIMES OF MORAL TURPITUDE"MENTAL STATE"RECKLESSNESS
Idy v. Holder, 674 F.3d 111 (1st Cir. Mar. 23, 2012) (New Hampshire conviction of reckless conduct, in violation of N.H.Rev.Stat. Ann. 631:3 [recklessly engages in conduct which places or may place another in danger of serious bodily injury where the defendant is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk] is a CMT).

Eighth Circuit

CRIMES OF MORAL TUPRITUDE " RECKLESS DISREGARD
Avendano v. Holder, 770 F.3d 731 (8th Cir. Oct. 27, 2014) (Minnesota conviction of making terroristic threats, in violation of Minn.Stat. 609.713(1) [threatening to commit a crime of violence in reckless disregard of the risk of causing terror in his girlfriend], is categorically a crime of moral turpitude, where, as here, Recklessness requires deliberate action in disregard of a known, substantial risk.); citing Matter of Louissaint, 24 I. & N. Dec. 754, 756-757 (BIA 2009) (According to the Attorney General, a crime involving moral turpitude involves reprehensible conduct committed with some degree of scienter, either specific intent, deliberateness, willfulness, or recklessness. citing Matter of Silva"Trevino, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 706 & n. 5).

CRIME OF MORAL TURPITUDE - ASSAULT - RECKLESS
Godinez-Arroyo v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 848, 2008 WL 3927229 (8th Cir. Aug. 28, 2008) (Missouri conviction for second degree assault, recklessly causing serious physical injury, in violation of V.A.M.S. 565.060(3), is a crime of moral turpitude; Missouri law defines recklessness as a "conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk").

Ninth Circuit

CRIMES OF MORAL TURPITUDE " RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT
Leal v. Holder, 771 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. Nov. 6, 2014) (Arizona conviction of felony endangerment under Arizona Revised Statute 13"1201 [recklessly endangering another person with a substantial risk of imminent death or physical injury where reckless means consciously disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk] constituted a crime of moral turpitude: We agree with the BIA's determination that the creation of a substantial, actual risk of imminent death is sufficiently reprehensible, or in terms of our case law base, vile, and depraved, to establish a CIMT, even though no actual harm need occur.).

Eleventh Circuit

CRIMES OF MORAL TURPITUDE - ENDANGERMENT - RECKLESS CONDUCT
Keungne v. United States Atty Gen., 561 F.3d 128 (11th Cir. Mar. 11, 2009) (Georgia conviction for "reckless conduct," in violation of Ga. Code Ann. 16-5-60(b) ["endanger bodily safety of another by consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his act or omission will cause harm"] is categorically a crime of moral turpitude), relying upon Knapik v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 84 (3d Cir. 2004).

Note: the court did not address the issue that the offense can be committed through an omission.

CRIMES OF MORAL TURPITUDE - CRIMINAL RECKLESS CONDUCT
Keungne v. U.S. Attorney General, ___ F.3d ___ (11th Cir. Mar. 10, 2009) (Georgia conviction of criminal reckless conduct, under Ga. Code Ann. 16-5-60(b) ["causes bodily harm to or endangers the bodily safety of another person by consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his act or omission will cause harm or endanger the safety of the other person and the disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care which a reasonable person would exercise in the situation"], constitutes a crime of moral turpitude for purposes of establishing deportability, pursuant to INA 237(a)(2)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(i), for one conviction of a CMT within five years of admission, because the minimum conduct for which conviction can be had requires conscious disregard of a substantial risk of serious harm or death to another).
NOTE: This is a bad decision, since it did not consider that not all reckless conduct necessarily involves moral turpitude.

Other

AGGRAVATED FELONY " CRIME OF VIOLENCE " RECKLESSNESS " ATTEMPTED RECKLESSNESS
New York permits defendants to plead guilty to legally impossible crimes, including attempted reckless first-degree assault. See People v. Guishard, 15 A.D.3d 731, 789 N.Y.S.2d 332, 333 (2005) (affirming plea conviction to attempted assault in the first degree although the crime was a legal impossibility); Dale v. Holder, 610 F.3d 294, 302 (5th Cir. 2010). Compare, United States v. Gomez"Hernandez, 680 F.3d 1171, 1175"78 & n. 4 (9th Cir. 2012) (defendant's conviction for attempted aggravated assault qualified as a crime of violence because, under Arizona law, it is not possible to be convicted of attempt without specific intent).