Also known as:malice-prepense · malice aforethought
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A culpable mental state required for common law murder. It exists when a defendant acts with intent to kill, intent to inflict grievous bodily harm, extreme recklessness showing a depraved heart, or intent to commit a felony.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Intent to Kill via Head Shot
Melanie Morris discovered that her colleague had reported her side business. She waited after hours, confronted him in a conference room, pressed a loaded pistol to his temple, and fired once. The deliberate targeting of a vital area at close range supplied the required mental state for murder.
Killing During Felony Theft
Mason McCarthy and a partner entered a restricted hospital storage room after hours to steal diagnostic devices. When an elderly patient blocked their path, McCarthy injected a large unauthorized dose of sedative. The patient suffered respiratory arrest and died while the theft continued.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Common Law
Study Supplements
Dictionaries
Monica Morgan locked a laboratory door, wrapped an extension cord around her graduate student's neck, and pulled forcefully for several minutes. The prolonged compression of the throat caused death by asphyxiation. No justification or mitigation applied.
Deadly Weapon Inference
Meredith Maxwell seized a heavy server rack rail and swung it repeatedly at a coworker's head and torso. The targeted blows with a metal object to vital areas caused fatal injuries. The factfinder could infer the necessary intent from the weapon's use.
Intent to Inflict Great Harm
Mariam Mansour tackled a suspected shoplifter and repeatedly stomped on the teenager's chest with steel-toed boots while shouting threats. The sustained blows to the torso caused fatal internal injuries. No excuse or mitigation reduced the offense.
Evidence of Formed Intent
Maria Morales armed herself with a loaded rifle after a dispute, followed the victim outside, aimed at her back, and fired a single fatal shot. The sequence of arming, pursuing, aiming, and shooting demonstrated the required mental state despite claims of sudden anger.
Davis v. United States160 U.S. 469, 16 S.Ct. 353, 40 L.Ed. 499 (1895)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
4
What mental states satisfy malice prepense at common law?+
Malice prepense is satisfied by intent to kill, intent to inflict grievous bodily harm, extreme recklessness showing a depraved heart, or intent to commit a felony. Each form independently supports a murder conviction when an unlawful killing occurs.
Supporting sources
How does use of a deadly weapon directed at a vital area affect the analysis?+
Intentional use of a deadly weapon aimed at a vital part of the body permits the factfinder to infer intent to kill. That inference satisfies the malice element for common law murder.
Supporting sources
Does anger alone prevent a finding of malice prepense?+
Anger does not negate malice prepense. A deliberate intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm remains sufficient even when the defendant acts while enraged, unless a separate doctrine such as adequate provocation reduces the offense.
Supporting sources
When does intent to inflict great bodily injury supply the required mental state?+
A deliberate intent to inflict great bodily injury constitutes implied malice. Repeated forceful blows to vulnerable areas with an object likely to cause serious harm allow a factfinder to find the element satisfied.
Supporting sources
530 U.S. 466 (2000)Evidence
…(1975), in which we invalidated a Maine statute that presumed that a defendant who acted with an intent to kill possessed the "malice aforethought" necessary to constitute the State's murder offense (and therefore, was subject to that crime's associated punishment of life imprisonment). The statute placed the burden on the defendant…