Reckless Murder

Case: Mayes v. People, 106 Ill. 306 (1883) [p. 400-403]

Facts: Mayes was somewhat drunk, and started cursing at his wife when she failed to respond when he asked
her for arsenic. He said he would either kill her or she should kill him. He then threw a beer glass at his wife,
and broke a lighted oil lamp she was holding. The burning oil was scattered all over her, but he made no effort
to help her extinguish the flames. She died a few days later from the wounds caused by the burning. Mayes
argues that he only intended to throw the glass out the door, but it accidently hit her, so he didn’t intend to
actually hit her. Witnesses said he "threw the beer glass at her with vengeance." The jury instruction said, "that
intention to commit the crime is essential, and the people must show beyond a reasonable doubt, that Δ threw
the glass wit the intention to do her bodily injury, […] unless all circumstances of the killing show an
abandoned and malignant heart on the part of the Δ." Mayes was convicted of murder, sentenced to life
imprisonment.

Holding: Affirmed. (this is CL) Malice is an indispensable element to the crime of murder. Malice shall be
implied when no considerable provocation appears, or when all circumstances of the killing show an abandoned
and malignant heart. It is immaterial whether Mayes intended to strike his wife, or other persons there, or
whether he had any specific intent, but acted solely from general malicious recklessness, disregarding any and
all consequences. Whatever the intent, he must have know the high probability that he would injure her, and still
did it, thereby acting in recklessness. Even if he intended another result, he is still responsible for the actual
result.

Class Notes

• Quintessential examples of extreme reckless murder;

o Russian roulette
o Shooting into a crowd of people
o Dropping a brick off a building onto a crowd of ppl
• How are these examples different from causing a death through recklessness sufficient for manslaughter
(coconut grove, sick baby not brought to hospital, etc.) - mens rea - distinguishing between ordinary
recklessness (manslaughter) and extreme recklessness (murder) [but Mayes is a case on the border - it
tests the edge]
o Ordinary recklessness - requires someone disregards a substantial unjustified risk. But for
extreme recklessness, the possibility of someone dying is much higher
o Act vs. Omission - easier to find an abandoned and malignant heart is someone actually acts,
rather than not acting
o Recklessness (subjective) - people who themselves, subjectively, consciously contemplate a
substantial risk of death
o Purpose for recklessness
• Ordinary recklessness - they chose not to bring baby to doctor, even if they perceived of
the risk that baby was very sick, because they were afraid baby would be taken away.
• Extreme recklessness - ppl who choose to be reckless for no redeeming purpose. Not an
inadvertent recklessness, or recklessness weighed against some other reason. They took
such risks for death, or for such irredeemable purposes. Ppl flirting with death - no other
reason than to see it would be fun - that there is an abandoned and malignant heart.
• Why should we punish these people for murder and not for manslaughter? Why is there a difference?
o There is a notion of malice, which can be proven in different ways. They see it as an equivalent
to intent.
______________________________________

Notes: [p. 403-404; p. 407-411, notes 7-8]

• Mens rea - reckless, abandoned and malignant heart

• Extreme indifference and gross recklessness - MPC § 210(2)(c)
o Murder when "committed recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to
the value of human life."
• Recklessness presupposes an awareness of the creation of substantial homicidal risk, a
risk too great to be deemed justifiable by any valid purpose that the actor's conduct
serves.
• Since risk can be different variations, there needs to be a formula for when recklessness
can be found.
• Ordinary recklessness - sufficient for manslaughter - Whether actor's conduct
departs from acceptable behavior that it constitutes a "gross deviation from the
standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor's
situation."
• For murder - whether the actor's conscious disregard of the risk, under the
circumstances, manifests extreme indifference to the value of human life. This is
for a trier of fact to determine.
o Such recklessness is presumed if actor engages in enumerated acts
• You can't talk about purposefulness in a vacuum. Faulkner (stealing rum, ship sets fire) -
this illegal act, though, does not show an extreme indifference to human life, only some
felonies rise to this level.
• Intoxication
o Even though intoxication is sometimes admissible to negate a required "specific intent," the
MPC virtually forbids the use of intoxication testimony to negate a mens rea of recklessness
where the Δ, if sober, would have been aware of the risk perceived.
o This rule may also apply to "grossly reckless" murder. State v. Dufield said that even though
"extreme indifference" required a higher mental state than reckless manslaughter, the point was
that there was a more extreme degree of divergence from law-abiding conduct rather than
looking at a subjective state of mind. This is objectively measured.
• Intent to do serious bodily injury
o CL definition of murder allowed intent to do serious bodily injury to substitute for intent to kill.
• Vehicular Manslaughter
o People v. Watson (1981) - held that a drunk driver who causes a fatal car accident can be charged
with 2nd degree murder.