If no death results, such an act would generally constitute reckless endangerment (sometimes known as "culpable negligence") and possibly other crimes, such as assault.
The common law treats such a state of mind as just as blameworthy, just as anti-social and, therefore, just as truly murderous as the specific intents to kill and to harm.
A classic example of depraved-heart murder under the common law is in the case Commonwealth v. Malone, a Pennsylvania case in which the court affirmed the second-degree murder conviction of a teenager for a death arising from a game of modified Russian roulette in which each player pointed and fired the gun at the other, eventually resulting in the death of one of them.
[8] The Model Penal Code considers unintentional killing to constitute murder when the conduct of the defendant manifests "extreme indifference to the value of human life".
However, the Supreme Court of Canada held that murder requires, at minimum, subjective knowledge that death is a likely consequence of the defendant's actions.
Murder is not classified into degrees in England and Wales, unlike in Canada, but sentences are more severe (always life, but with a longer period when the offender is ineligible for parole) in cases where there are more aggravating than mitigating factors.
[11] In the 1946 case, Commonwealth v. Malone,[1] the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the conviction of a teenager on the charge of second degree murder using the depraved-heart doctrine.
The prosecution successfully argued using the depraved-heart doctrine that the defendant's recklessness and carelessness amounted to a level of negligence sufficient to serve as evidence of criminally culpable intent.