354 Pa. 180, 47 A.2d 445 (Pa. 1946)
Commonwealth v. Malone is a cornerstone criminal law case illustrating the doctrine of "depraved heart" (or abandoned and malignant heart) murder.
Whether a defendant who intentionally engages in extremely dangerous conduct—pointing a loaded gun at a person and repeatedly pulling the trigger during a "game"—can be found guilty of murder based on implied malice (depraved heart), even absent a specific intent to kill.
Malice aforethought may be inferred when the defendant intentionally commits an act in reckless and wanton disregard of a high and unjustifiable risk to human life, evidencing extreme indifference to the value of human life. Under Pennsylvania law, malice does not require spite or ill will; it encompasses "wickedness of disposition, hardness of heart, cruelty, recklessness of consequences, and a mind regardless of social duty." Where death results from such conduct, the offense is murder (here, second degree), even if the defendant lacked a specific intent to kill.
Yes. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed Malone's conviction for second-degree murder, holding that the intentional performance of an act creating a very high risk of death—pointing a loaded gun at another and pulling the trigger—permitted the jury to infer malice and thus to find murder rather than manslaughter.
Malone is a leading case on depraved-heart murder and remains a teaching staple for distinguishing murder based on implied malice from manslaughter. It illustrates that intentional engagement in extraordinarily dangerous conduct—especially with firearms—can elevate a homicide to murder absent a specific intent to kill. The case informs modern doctrine (including Model Penal Code "extreme indifference" murder) and is frequently cited for the principle that malice is satisfied by a deliberate, unjustifiable, and life-threatening risk creation demonstrating extreme indifference to human life.