D lived in a house that was connected to the house of his future mother-in-law, Sarah Wade.
D needed money, so he stole the gas meter from the basement of the conjoined houses. Gas leaked everywhere and nearly killed Wade in her sleep.
D was charged with larceny and with causing the injury to Wade.
Judge instructed jury that D could be convicted even if he did not intend to harm Wade as long as he acted unlawfully and maliciously (wickedly).
Procedural History:
Trial court found D guilty.
Appellate court reversed, remanded.
Issues:
How is malice defined as it relates to the criminal state of mind?
Holding/Rule:
Malice requires either an actual intention to do the particular kind of harm that was in fact done or recklessness as to whether such harm should occur or not.
Reasoning:
D's act was clearly unlawful, but the jury needed to decide whether the act was malicious within the meaning of the statute.
The jury needed to decide whether, even if D did not intend to harm Wade, he foresaw that the removal of the gas meter might cause injury.
It can't be said that the jury could find this without a reasonable doubt, so the conviction must be vacated.
Dissent:
None.
Notes:
Under the statute, a person must act unlawfully and maliciously.
