How has the court interpreted the law in the context of implied malice murder?

express malice is the legal term and intent to kill somebody. The other is what they call an implied malice argument. Didn't intend to kill somebody, engaged in dangerous conduct with knowledge and conscious disregard of the consequences." Defense counsel further reiterated the necessity to prove the existence of implied malice on an aiding and abetting theory for a conviction of second degree murder: "In the crime of second degree murder based on the theory of implied malice, a necessary element is the existence in the mind of the defendant of a mental state of malice aforethought. [] In a crime based on a theory of liability as an aider and abettor, a necessary element is the existence in the mind of the defendant of both the knowledge and of the unlawful purpose of the perpetrator and an intent to assist that purpose." The prosecutor, in turn, urged the jury to find defendant guilty of first degree murder based only on felony robbery or murder by lying in wait, on which the jury did not convict. Finally, after the case was submitted to the jury, the court reiterated its instruction pursuant to CALJIC No. 3.31 on the mental state required for second degree murder.³ In light of the cohesive, extensive instructions given to the jury, the arguments of counsel, and the entire record of the trial, it is not reasonably likely that the jury misapplied the court's instructions. Had defendant believed that the jury required clarification of aiding and abetting principles with respect to implied malice murder, he could have requested clarification or modification of the instructions at trial. " 'If defendant believed that the instruction was incomplete or needed elaboration, it was his responsibility to request an additional or clarifying instruction.' " (People v. Carpenter (1997) 15 Cal.4th 312, 391-392.)