I thought if any crime needed motive it would be first-degree murder. I thought the definition of first-degree murder was pre-meditation that led to the murder. That would presume a motive to me.
Is it true that showing motive is not a legal requirement in a murder case? Or am I missing some nuance here?
I understand we should not trust Hollywood to get details right but it is so pervasive and consistent throughout the years it does seem a little surprising to get this detail so wrong.
Neither motive nor opportunity to commit the crime is required to prove the defendant guilty. So why are these words so commonly uttered at trial?
Motive is why the defendant killed. Money and sex are common motives. A recently-purchased life insurance policy, or jealousy over an affair are potentially strong motives, for example.
If the defendant had a motive to kill the victim, such evidence is relevant to prove that he did in fact kill the victim. The defense may point to others who also had possible motives. Or they may argue the defendant’s motive was not sufficient to drive him to kill.
Even though it is not required to prove the defendant guilty, motive is often heavily debated at trial. That’s because people have a strong need to know why. And in our jury system, people are the ones deciding guilt.
Essentially it just helps to establish a narrative that jurors can easily follow, and helps to link certain pieces of evidence together.
“Motive” is not required to convict someone of a crime. All that is required is to persuade a jury (or the judge in a bench trial) that the accused performed the crime(s) beyond a reasonable doubt and with intention corresponding to the counts based upon physical evidence, witness testimony, and strong inference.
“Means, motive, and opportunity” comes from the planks of establishing a narrative for the “theory of the case”; that is, a persuasive story for how, why, and when/where the accused committed, conspired, or assisted in the commission of the crime or subsequence concealment which the jury can follow. It is much easier for a jury to come to agreement on a conviction (and ignore exculpatory evidence) when they feel they have an understanding of the reasons that the defendant might have performed the alleged crime(s) but it is not obligatory of the prosecution to demonstrate it, and indeed, absent of an uncoerced confession it is impossible to make an objective statement about the mental state and interior motivations of the accused at the time of the crime.
Motive needs to be separated from intent. For example, if I kill my wife it doesn’t matter if my motive was the insurance money or because she learned of my affair. The prosecution would have to establish I planned it with premeditated intent, but not why I wanted her dead. They might want to introduce evidence of motive, to help establish it was a planned crime and not a heat of passion kind of thing. But they jury would not have to weigh in on motive.
However, in the recent Trump trial, motive was an issue, since they had to establish the falsification of business records were done for criminal purpose.
Having a motive would certainly make it much easier to establish premeditation, but one can envision situations where premeditation is known, but the motive isn’t. For instance, if there’s evidence that the person researched on the Internet different ways of killing people, including a poison that could be made from specific ingredients, and then ordered those specific ingredients online, and then the police found a makeshift lab in their home that included traces of those ingredients and the finished poison, and the autopsy report says that it was in fact that poison that killed the victim, that’s definitely evidence of premeditated murder, but the authorities might still have no idea why the murderer did it.
An example of this is Bryan Kohberger being charged with first degree murder in the 2022 University of Idaho murders. No motive has been determined, but the authorities are seeking the death penalty.
I think the purpose of that was to link one crime (falsification of business records) to another crime (“intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof”), to wit violations of state tax laws, state election laws, and federal campaign finance laws (although Trump was not arraigned for these crimes). Although his motive (to conceal the payoff of an affair with Stephanie Clifford, a.k.a. ‘Stormy Daniels’) is pretty clear, it really isn’t necessary as long as it can be credibly demonstrated that the intent of the payoffs were to prevent her from speaking publicly about the their relationship, which David Pecker and Michael Cohen testified to.
There is requirement to show a “guilty mind” (Mens Rea) and a convenient way to do that is to show a motive, though that doesn’t mean the prosecution has to show motive
Of course, there are some crimes where guilty intent (“mens rea”) is not necessary. DUI is a prime example - if the judge believes you had no idea the punch was spiked, it may mitigate the sentence if the judge is feeling charitable - but you’re still guilty. Another example is statutory rape. The adult in the room is expected to avoid it, even if it is initiated by th minor. Not knowing the partner’s age is not an exuce either - the is expected to know and understand the need for age verification. (Although I suppose from the article linked above, “I didn’t know…” would fall under mens rea of “negligence”.)
Depends what you consider motive. Leopold an Leob in the 1920’s murdered a 14yo boy “for kicks” or to demonstrate they were smart enough to get away with it. (They weren’t).
A complete lack of motive leaves the door open for reasonable doubt, but it isn’t REQUIRED. In the O.J. Simpson murder trial, there was a strong motive, but he was still found innocent.
It’s also useful to remember that a finding of premeditation doesn’t require much at all. The murderer doesn’t need to have pre-planned the crime; it’s enough to show that he formed intent before striking the blow.
Hint… don’t drop your glasses at the scene, when you are one of 3 in Chicago with that type of glasses… Especially if your “motive” is to prove you’re smart.
Yeah. If one day at lunch with your best friend from childhood, you walk over to the next table, grab a shrimp fork and jam it into his neck, the prosecution can prove intent without knowing motive at all, and you’re down for premeditated murder. But if you shout, “You cheating bastard,” as you jump across the table, and he dies from falling backwards off his chair, motive is clear, but arguably there’s no intent and some lesser degree of crime is all you’re guilty of (IANAL)
There is mens rea for driving impaired / .08. Àt those levels, it’s difficult to believe that the driver wasn’t feeling the effects and knew something was impairing them, even if they didn’t know what.
I thought being under the influence of some drug changes how courts deal with a person’s decision making. E.G. In rape cases a person being under the influence of drugs is deemed unable to give meaningful consent to having sex. What if both parties are under the influence? (not sure what happens then)
Note: I am not trying to suggest DUI should be treated more lightly.
It’s going to be a question of facts in each case. “Under the influence of drugs” is too vague a standard.
At a certain level, a person may be so impaired that their ability to give consent is negated, but a different person who’s taken different drugs or amounts can be “under the influence of drugs” and still able to consent.
You also have accessories. The driver of the getaway car is just a liable as the perpetrators if something escalates to murder in a botched holdup. “I was just driving, man” has not held up in court.
Agreed. It’s clear here that motive in itself is not a necessity to prove murder, but it sure helps to prove intent and remove reasonable doubt. It’s not that hard for the state to allege a motive, but a bit more difficult to prove sometimes. If the state charges only first degree murder they can end up in a bind if the jury doesn’t believe there is a motive to justify the charge of premeditation.