Does the definition of malice change when a jury is asked to imply malice?

Defendant further contends the definition of malice violated Ireland by permitting the jury to imply malice 'from an act involving a high degree of probability that it will result in death, which act is intentionally done for a base, antisocial motive and with wanton disregard for human life.' That portion of the instruction does not violate Ireland. Ireland did not forbid an instruction on implied malice; it condemned the device of using proof of an underlying felony, such as assault with a deadly weapon, as [18 Cal.App.3d 551] a substitute for proof of malice. In the instant case defendant admittedly shot and killed the victims. When a killing is proved to have been committed by the accused, and nothing further is shown, the presumption is that it was malicious. (People v. Brunk, 258 Cal.App.2d 453, 456, 65 Cal.Rptr. 727.)