## Facts

- Mayes, intoxicated, returned home and argued with his wife, daughter, and mother-in-law.
- During the quarrel, he threw a tin quart measure at his daughter.
- Mayes’s wife, carrying a lit oil lamp, led the daughter toward a bedroom.
- Mayes then threw a large beer mug or glass in the direction of his wife; it struck the lamp, shattering it and splashing burning oil onto her clothing.
- The wife’s clothes ignited; she suffered severe burns and died a few days later.
- Mayes did not attempt to extinguish the fire.
- At trial, Mayes claimed he did not intend to hit his wife and was trying to throw the glass out an open door; the daughter and mother-in-law testified to facts supporting an inference that he threw toward the wife and child.
- A jury convicted Mayes of murder, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment.

## Issues

1. Whether murder may be proved by implied malice where a defendant commits an unlawful, inherently dangerous act with an “abandoned and malignant heart,” even absent a specific intent to kill or to injure the victim.
2. Whether the trial court properly refused an instruction requiring the jury to find that Mayes intended to inflict bodily injury on his wife.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed the murder conviction.
- The court held that murder does not require proof of a specific intent to kill.
- The court approved instructing the jury that malice could be inferred if the fatal act was committed with an “abandoned and malignant heart.”
- The court upheld the refusal to require an instruction demanding a finding of specific intent to injure the wife.

## Legal Principles

- Malice for murder may be implied from an intentional unlawful act committed under circumstances showing a conscious disregard for human life and a high likelihood of great bodily harm.
- A killing caused by “abandoned and malignant heart” conduct (extreme recklessness) can constitute murder even if the defendant lacked a specific purpose to kill or to harm the particular victim.
- A defendant is responsible for the natural and probable consequences of deliberately engaging in conduct that is inherently dangerous to human life.
- Ordinary recklessness may support manslaughter, but extreme recklessness showing general malice may elevate the homicide to murder.

## Conclusion

The court sustained a murder conviction based on implied malice, holding that a deliberate, highly dangerous act done with extreme recklessness toward human life can satisfy malice aforethought without proof that the defendant specifically intended to kill or injure the person who died.


Mayes v. People, 106 Ill. 306 (Ill. 1883)