Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.020 (2026)

Malice: Express and implied defined

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

NRS 200.020 Malice: Express and implied defined.

1. Express malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow creature, which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof.

2. Malice shall be implied when no considerable provocation appears, or when all the circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart.

[1911 C&P § 120; A 1915, 67; 1919 RL § 6385; NCL § 10067]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 64 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1964–2025 · leading case: Byford v. State, 994 P.2d 700 (Nev. 2000).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Byford v. State, 994 P.2d 700 (Nev. 2000). · cites it 12× “The Kazalyn instruction invites concern when it defines premeditation as a "determination to kill" [2] because express malice means a deliberate intention to kill ( see NRS 200.020(1); Keys v. State, 104 Nev. 736, 740 , 766 P.”

Collman v. State, 7 P.3d 426 (Nev. 2000). · cites it 6× “A cold-blooded murderer could kill a kidnap victim, for example, simply for the sake of convenience, Nevertheless, as demonstrated below, consistent with its ordinary connotation, malice of all four types includes an intent to act wrongfully.”

Doyle v. State, 921 P.2d 901 (Nev. 1996). · cites it 6× “2d 793 (1989), a case that involved statutory language identical to that contained in NRS 200.020. In Fulghum , the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal found that the implied malice instruction, standing alone, would have been constitutionally infirm.”

Nika v. State, 198 P.3d 839 (Nev. 2008). · cites it 2× “We further reject Nika's claim that the district court's refusal to consider his challenge to the premeditation instruction resulted in a fundamental miscarriage of justice.”

Finger v. State, 27 P.3d 66 (Nev. 2001). · cites it 2× “Malice is defined in NRS 200.020. Express malice involves the deliberate intention to unlawfully take away the life of a fellow creature, while malice is implied when, for *84 example, the circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart.”

Keys v. State, 766 P.2d 270 (Nev. 1988). · cites it 3× “Second Degree Murder Keys contends that there is insufficient evidence of malice to support a murder conviction. This is a clear case of murder with implied malice.”

Hernandez v. State, 50 P.3d 1100 (Nev. 2002). “when all the circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart,” essentially the definition set forth in NRS 200.020(2). Hernandez argued that the language “abandoned and malignant heart” is archaic, vague, and ambiguous.”

Guy v. State, 839 P.2d 578 (Nev. 1992). · cites it 2× “See NRS 200.020; Keys v. State, 104 Nev. 736 , 766 P.”

Cutler v. State, 566 P.2d 809 (Nev. 1977). · cites it 3× “Implied malice played no part in this case inasmuch as those elements of the crime of murder in the first degree conclusively established express malice as defined in NRS 200.020(1). Scott v. State, 92 Nev. 552 , 554 P.”

Rose v. State, 255 P.3d 291 (Nev. 2011). · cites it 2× “The conduct could be viewed as using a deadly weapon to intentionally place the victim in reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm by threatening her with immediate violent injury. A jury therefore could find that the felony was assaultive and merged with the homicide.”

Labastida v. State, 931 P.2d 1334 (Nev. 1996). · cites it 6× “See NRS 200.020. Child neglect, as found in this case, constituted an unlawful act that tended to destroy a human life [8] and demonstrated the abandoned and malignant *1340 heart required for a conviction of murder.”

Leonard v. State, 17 P.3d 397 (Nev. 2001). “” The instruction is nearly identical to NRS 200.020(2); the instruction differs only in that it uses the word “may” instead of “shall.”

Show all 64 citing cases →

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.020(1) — 16 cases

Byford v. State, 994 P.2d 700 (Nev. 2000). “The Kazalyn instruction invites concern when it defines premeditation as a "determination to kill" [2] because express malice means a deliberate intention to kill ( see NRS 200.020(1); Keys v. State, 104 Nev. 736, 740 , 766 P.”

Doyle v. State, 921 P.2d 901 (Nev. 1996). “2d 793 (1989), a case that involved statutory language identical to that contained in NRS 200.020. In Fulghum , the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal found that the implied malice instruction, standing alone, would have been constitutionally infirm.”

Sharma v. State, 56 P.3d 868 (Nev. 2002).

Keys v. State, 766 P.2d 270 (Nev. 1988). “Second Degree Murder Keys contends that there is insufficient evidence of malice to support a murder conviction. This is a clear case of murder with implied malice.”

Cutler v. State, 566 P.2d 809 (Nev. 1977). “Implied malice played no part in this case inasmuch as those elements of the crime of murder in the first degree conclusively established express malice as defined in NRS 200.020(1). Scott v. State, 92 Nev. 552 , 554 P.”

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.020(2) — 23 cases

Rose v. State, 255 P.3d 291 (Nev. 2011). “The conduct could be viewed as using a deadly weapon to intentionally place the victim in reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm by threatening her with immediate violent injury. A jury therefore could find that the felony was assaultive and merged with the homicide.”

Leonard v. State, 17 P.3d 397 (Nev. 2001). “” The instruction is nearly identical to NRS 200.020(2); the instruction differs only in that it uses the word “may” instead of “shall.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.