Also known as: malum in se · malum prohibitum · malum in se vs. malum prohibitum · malum in se/malum prohibitum
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A doctrinal distinction in criminal law that classifies offenses as either inherently wrongful because they violate basic moral standards or wrongful solely because a statute or regulation prohibits them. Courts apply the distinction to limit the scope of the misdemeanor-manslaughter rule. When the underlying misdemeanor is malum in se, liability attaches without further proof. When the misdemeanor is malum prohibitum, most jurisdictions require that the resulting death be a foreseeable or natural consequence of the unlawful conduct.
Mina Mehta, an assistant manager, chained the store's only emergency exit shut to deter theft even though she knew the action violated local fire codes. A fire broke out from faulty wiring, trapping janitor Samantha inside and causing her death by smoke inhalation. Because the code violation was malum prohibitum, the court examined whether Samantha's death was a foreseeable result of the chaining before imposing manslaughter liability.
Michelle Murphy, a construction supervisor, ordered workers to run loud saws after 7 p.m. in violation of a city noise ordinance designed to protect neighborhood quiet. The noise startled resident Nora, who fell down her stairs and died. Under the majority rule, the court held that the regulatory violation was malum prohibitum and that Nora's death was not a foreseeable result of the noise, so no manslaughter conviction followed.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Marcus Mitchell forced underage pledges to consume repeated shots of liquor despite prior warnings about anti-hazing laws. One pledge collapsed and died of alcohol poisoning. The court treated the hazing violations as malum in se and imposed involuntary manslaughter liability because the death followed directly from the inherently wrongful conduct.
Mariam Mansour flew a consumer drone indoors at a crowded conference in violation of building rules and a local ordinance. The drone struck a light fixture that fell and killed attendee Carlos. The court classified the regulatory violation as malum prohibitum yet found the death foreseeable in the crowded indoor setting and therefore imposed manslaughter liability.
Musa Mensah ordered workers to burn debris near a public road despite a county ordinance prohibiting open burning. Thick smoke drifted across the roadway, causing a driver to swerve and kill cyclist Jordan. The court applied the malum prohibitum foreseeability requirement and convicted Mensah of involuntary manslaughter because the collision was a natural consequence of the unlawful smoke.
Most courts require that the underlying misdemeanor be malum in se before imposing manslaughter liability without further proof. When the misdemeanor is malum prohibitum, liability attaches only if the resulting death was a foreseeable or natural consequence of the unlawful conduct.
Supporting sources
Under the majority approach, a death occurring during a non-malum in se misdemeanor constitutes manslaughter only if the death was a reasonably foreseeable result of committing that misdemeanor.
Supporting sources
No. When the violation is malum prohibitum, courts following the majority rule require proof that the death was a foreseeable consequence of the unlawful conduct rather than an automatic elevation to manslaughter.
Supporting sources
Yes. A minority of jurisdictions limit the doctrine to cases in which the underlying misdemeanor is inherently wrongful, excluding regulatory violations even when death is foreseeable.
Supporting sources
…abandonment of the ingredient of intent, not merely with considerations of expediency in obtaining convictions, nor with the malum prohibitum classification of the crime, but with the peculiar nature and quality of the offense. We referred to “. . . a now familiar type of legislation whereby penalties serve as effective means of…