## Facts

- Ned Terrell struck James Wilson in the eye with a brick.
- Wilson had previously lost his other eye.
- The blow destroyed Wilson’s remaining eye and left him completely blind.
- The State charged Terrell with mayhem based on the disabling injury to Wilson’s eye.
- At trial, the judge instructed the jury that if Terrell struck Wilson “from feelings of malice” toward him (and without legal justification), the jury should find him guilty of mayhem.
- Terrell asked for an instruction requiring “malice aforethought” and proof that he specifically intended to put out Wilson’s eye; the trial court refused.
- The jury convicted Terrell of mayhem, and he appealed.

## Issues

1. In a prosecution for mayhem, must the State prove the defendant specifically intended to destroy the victim’s eye (or otherwise intended the particular maiming), or is it enough to show the defendant acted with malice and the act caused the disabling injury?
2. Was there sufficient evidence of malice to support the mayhem conviction based on the brick strike that blinded Wilson?

## Decision

- The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed Terrell’s conviction.
- The court held the trial judge did not err by refusing Terrell’s requested instruction requiring “malice aforethought” and a specific intent to put out Wilson’s eye.
- The court held that the jury could find the malice required for mayhem from the nature of the act—an unjustified violent blow to the eye with a brick—and the resulting loss of the eye.
- The court concluded the evidence supported the verdict.

## Legal Principles

- Mayhem is established when a defendant unlawfully and maliciously commits an act of violence that in fact disables or destroys a bodily member or organ covered by the offense.
- The State need not prove the defendant had a purpose formed in advance to cause the exact maiming injury (such as a specific intent to blind) when the defendant intentionally commits a violent act and the disabling injury results.
- Malice for mayhem may be inferred from the character of the defendant’s conduct and surrounding circumstances, including an unprovoked or unjustified attack using a dangerous object aimed at a vulnerable body part.
- A jury instruction that ties guilt to whether the defendant acted “from feelings of malice” (and without legal justification) adequately states the mental-state requirement for mayhem in this context.

## Conclusion

Terrell v. State upheld a mayhem conviction where the defendant struck the victim’s only remaining eye with a brick and caused total blindness. The court ruled that mayhem did not require proof that Terrell specifically intended to blind Wilson; it was sufficient that he acted with malice and without justification and that his intentional act produced the disabling injury.


Terrell v. State, 8 S.W. 212 (1888)