Defendant argues on appeal that he committed the wounding in the heat of passion, not with malice, and therefore cannot be guilty of malicious wounding. Because we find the evidence sufficient to prove malice, we affirm. The parties are fully conversant with the record in the cause, and because this memorandum opinion carries no precedential value, no recitation of the facts is necessary.
Unlawful wounding is a lesser included offense of malicious wounding.
The element of malice constitutes the distinction between malicious and unlawful wounding. Implied malice exists when any purposeful, cruel act is committed by one individual against another without any, or without great provocation. If, upon review of the evidence, we find that the trial court was plainly wrong when it decided that defendant was acting with malice, we must reverse. In order to determine whether the accused acted in the heat of passion, it is necessary to consider the nature and degree of provocation as well as the manner in which it was resisted. In the instant case, it is abundantly clear that defendant acted with malice.