Court of
Criminal Appeal, 1957.
41 Crim.App. 155, 2 Q.B. 396, 2 All.Eng.Rep.
412.
Dressler, p. 133-134
Facts: Cunningham stole the gas meter from the basement of
the house he was going to live in, unknowingly causing gas to be released into
the neighboring house and threatening the life of his future mother-in-law. Cunningham was found guilty by a jury based
on instructions to which the defendant takes exception.
Issue: Did the trial judge give the jury the wrong
definition of “maliciously”?
Rule: Malice is not merely wickedness, but either an “actual
intention to do the particular kind of harm” or “recklessness as to whether such
should occur”.
Analysis: The court finds that the trial judge used the old,
incorrect definition of malice instead of the one cited.
Conclusion: The court quashed the conviction.
Notes and Questions
1.
To
convict a person of arson, the Government must prove, aside from the actus
2.
In
this case, the trial court used the “culpability” approach to mens rea,
while the Court of Criminal Appeal used the “elemental” approach.
3.
The
Court of Criminal Appeal defines “recklessness” as the mental state of
foreseeing that stealing the gas meter might hurt somebody. There is no evidence in the record that
Cunningham foresaw that his action might cause injury to someone.