Also known as: mala in se · wrong in itself
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A crime or an act that is inherently immoral or evil in itself. Such offenses involve moral turpitude or inherent wrongfulness independent of any statutory prohibition.
Marcus Mitchell intentionally struck a bystander during a street altercation that qualified as simple assault. When the victim fell and struck his head on the curb, the resulting death occurred. Because the underlying misdemeanor was malum in se, the jurisdiction imposed involuntary manslaughter liability without requiring separate proof of foreseeability.
Melanie Morris failed to renew her commercial driver's license before operating a delivery van. The van struck and killed a pedestrian when another driver ran a red light. Because the misdemeanor was not malum in se and the death was not a foreseeable result of the licensing violation, the majority rule barred misdemeanor-manslaughter liability.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Musa Mensah punched a coworker during an argument at work. The coworker suffered a fatal brain injury from the blow. The act constituted a malum in se offense, supporting involuntary manslaughter even though Mensah had not intended to cause death.
Miguel Mendoza knowingly sold unregistered securities to elderly investors without disclosure. The scheme caused substantial financial losses that a court treated as resulting from inherently wrongful conduct. The malum in se character of the acts distinguished the case from purely regulatory violations.
Madison Meyers accepted payment to transport illegal narcotics after government agents repeatedly urged the transaction. The underlying drug offense was malum in se, so the court refused to treat the conduct as merely regulatory when assessing the entrapment defense.
Mina Mehta removed government property from a storage facility believing it had been abandoned. The taking was malum in se, requiring the prosecution to prove she knew the property belonged to the government rather than treating the act as a strict regulatory offense.
When the underlying misdemeanor is malum in se, most courts impose manslaughter liability for a resulting death without requiring separate proof that the death was foreseeable. In contrast, when the misdemeanor is merely malum prohibitum, the death must be shown to be a natural or foreseeable consequence of the unlawful conduct.
Malum in se offenses are inherently immoral or involve moral turpitude by their nature, such as assault or larceny. Malum prohibitum offenses are wrongful only because a statute or regulation prohibits them, such as failing to renew a license or violating a parking ordinance.
Yes. For malum in se misdemeanors, courts often find the required causal link once cause-in-fact is established, even if the precise harm was not natural or probable. For malum prohibitum offenses, proximate cause and foreseeability remain essential elements.
…by any legitimating theory to explain why it is not a delegation of legislative power. To disregard structural legitimacy is wrong in itself — but since structure has purpose, the disregard also has adverse practical consequences. In this case, as suggested earlier, the consequence is to facilitate and encourage judicially…