Also known as: presumptive malice · implied malice
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An evidentiary doctrine at common law under which certain facts permit a factfinder to presume the existence of malice aforethought in a homicide prosecution. The doctrine rested on inferences such as the intent to produce the natural and probable consequences of an act or the use of a deadly weapon.
Pedro Pacheco, a deckhand, secretly weakened the safety line assigned to captain Penelope Price before a forecasted gale while leaving other lines intact. When Price clipped in during the storm and drowned, the factfinder could presume malice from Pacheco's reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life. The prosecution therefore charged murder rather than manslaughter.
Priscilla Parks and Pierce Patterson entered a restricted hospital storage room to steal diagnostic devices. Parks injected an elderly patient with an unauthorized large dose of sedative to clear the hallway, causing respiratory arrest and death. The factfinder could presume malice from the intent to commit the underlying felony, supporting a murder charge.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Perry Pratt locked Alfred in a conference room and struck him repeatedly in the head with a heavy stapler until he lost consciousness. Alfred later died from brain hemorrhage. The factfinder could presume malice from Pratt's deliberate intent to inflict great bodily injury, allowing a murder conviction.
Pavel Petrov and Paragon Construction employees robbed a warehouse and shot a security guard who blocked their exit. The guard died from the wound. The factfinder could presume malice from the intent to commit robbery, elevating the homicide to first-degree murder under the felony-murder doctrine.
Premier Manufacturing worker Pierce Patterson killed a coworker during an argument and claimed sudden provocation. The prosecution introduced evidence that the killing was intentional and unlawful. The factfinder could presume malice unless Patterson proved heat of passion by a preponderance, satisfying due-process requirements for the murder charge.
Platinum Partners employee Priscilla Parks used a heavy metal bar to strike a rival during a workplace dispute, causing fatal head trauma. At sentencing the court treated the weapon use as an aggravating fact. The factfinder could presume malice from the intentional deadly-weapon use without violating due process.
Before defendants could testify, common law courts created presumptions to supply the malice element in homicide cases. One presumption held that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of an act. Another treated the intentional use of a deadly weapon as evidence of intent to kill.
The historical presumptions supplied the mental states now classified as implied malice, including reckless indifference to human life and intent to commit a felony. Modern courts no longer use mandatory presumptions but still permit inferences from the same facts.
No. The common law permitted a permissive inference of intent to kill from intentional deadly-weapon use, but the inference was never mandatory and could be rebutted by other evidence.
Under the felony-murder rule, any intent to commit a qualifying felony supplies the implied malice needed for murder, even if the felony itself is not inherently dangerous to life.
A mandatory presumption that shifts the burden of disproving malice to the defendant violates due process. Only permissive inferences that leave the ultimate burden on the prosecution are constitutionally permissible.
…either express or implied." Manslaughter was a killing "in the heat of passion, on sudden provocation, without express or implied malice aforethought." Id. , at 686, and n. 3. Although "express malice" at one point may have had its own significant independent meaning, see Perkins, A Re-Examination of Malice Aforethought, 43…