Homicide questions feel broad because several doctrines overlap. The way to control them is to classify the killing first, then test whether felony-murder or mitigation doctrines shift the result.
Homicide questions feel broad because several doctrines overlap. The way to control them is to classify the killing first, then test whether felony-murder or mitigation doctrines shift the result.
MURDER at common law requires "MALICE AFORETHOUGHT"—but this doesn't mean what it sounds like! Malice doesn't require ill will, and "aforethought" doesn't require advance planning.
THE FOUR TYPES OF MALICE:
1. INTENT TO KILL (Express Malice): D actually wants victim dead. Can be proven by words ("I'm going to kill you") or actions (shooting at vital organs, using deadly weapon).
2. INTENT TO CAUSE SERIOUS BODILY HARM: D wants to seriously injure, but victim dies. The intent to harm "transfers" to support murder charge.
3. DEPRAVED HEART (Abandoned & Malignant Heart): D doesn't intend to kill anyone specific but acts with extreme recklessness showing "a depraved indifference to human life." Examples: Shooting into an occupied building, playing Russian roulette with another person, driving 100mph through a school zone.
4. FELONY MURDER: Death occurs during commission of certain dangerous felonies. No actual intent to kill required—intent transfers from the felony.
KEY POINT: Malice is NOT the same as premeditation. ALL murder requires malice, but only FIRST-degree murder requires premeditation.
HYPO: D is extremely angry at his neighbor V. D grabs a baseball bat and beats V repeatedly, screaming "I'm going to teach you a lesson you'll never forget!" V falls unconscious and dies from head trauma. D says "I didn't mean to kill him—just rough him up."
ANALYSIS: What type of murder?
INTENT TO KILL? D says no intent to kill. But can argue: repeated blows to head with deadly weapon shows intent to kill. Jury could infer intent from actions.
INTENT TO CAUSE SERIOUS BODILY HARM? D admits wanting to "rough him up." Repeatedly beating someone with a bat shows intent to cause serious injury. V died from the beating. This type of malice is clearly satisfied—D intended serious harm, V died.
DEPRAVED HEART? Probably not the best theory—D was targeting a specific person, not acting with general disregard for human life.
CONCLUSION: D is guilty of MURDER. The prosecution can prove malice through intent to cause serious bodily harm, even if they can't prove intent to kill.
DEGREE? Depends on premeditation (analyzed in next section).
Section sources