State v. Hemphill - 104 N.C. App. 431, 409 S.E.2d 744 (1991)

Rule:

Malice does not necessarily mean an actual intent to take human life; it may be inferential or implied, instead of positive, as when an act which imports danger to another is done so recklessly or wantonly as to manifest depravity of mind and disregard of human life. In such a situation the law regards the circumstances of the act as so harmful that the law punishes the act as though malice did in fact exist.

Facts:

Defendant Stephen Andre Hemphill was charged with second-degree murder for the death of defendant's four-month-old daughter. He filed a motion to dismiss the charge but the trial court found him guilty, and denied his motion. The jury found that defendant acted with malice as defined by case law. As there was evidence that defendant shook the baby, and there was also an expert testimony that the cause of death was Shaken Baby Syndrome which typically resulted from an infant's head being held and shaken so violently that the brain was shaken inside the skull causing bruising and tearing of blood vessels on the surface of and inside the brain. Defendant appealed the judgment; his one assignment of error was that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of the element of malice.

Issue:

Was malice present?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The judgment was affirmed. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that defendant acted with malice as defined by the applicable caselaw. In particular, the evidence that defendant shook the baby, as well as the expert testimony of the cause of death was sufficient to show that defendant acted with recklessness of consequences, though there may have been no intention to injure the baby. Accordingly, the court held that the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss the charge of second-degree murder and that defendant had a fair trial free from prejudicial error.