Motive and Chance: Are They Necessary to Prove Murder?

When someone is accused of murder, it is often heard that they had “motive and opportunity” to commit the crime. The prosecutor can use this argument in court. If the case is reported, the media will undoubtedly echo those words. The defense may plead lack of reason or opportunity as part of its defense. But is motivation and opportunity required to condemn?

Every crime has what are called elements. The elements of the offense are those that must be proven to convict the defendant. For example, to convict a defendant of murder, the prosecution must prove that the defendant killed the victim and that he did so with premeditation. Malice basically means intent to kill.

No motive or opportunity to commit the crime is required to prove the defendant’s guilt. So why are these words so often uttered in court?

The motive is because the accused murdered. 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 showing that he did, in fact, kill the victim. The defense can point to others who also had possible motives. Or they may argue that the defendant’s motive was not sufficient to prompt him to kill.

Although proving the defendant’s guilt is not required, motive is often much debated at trial. That’s because people have a strong need to know why. And in our jury system, the people are the ones who decide guilt.

Killing is an extreme act, generally seen as outside the norm of human behavior. It is natural for a jury to want to know why someone would commit such an act. It’s also natural for jurors to want to hear a good reason before they feel comfortable convicting someone of murder, with the possibility of life in prison or even death.

The opportunity to commit the crime is a bit more obvious. Opportunity is also something basic that people want to see try, even if it is not required.

Was the defendant in the area where the crime occurred? Was he familiar with the area? Did he have transportation, if necessary? Was there no alibi to verify that the defendant was elsewhere? Or if the defendant had an alibi, was it an alibi that could be challenged?

Although these questions are not technically required to be answered to prove a defendant’s guilt, they are things that any jury would want to know. Therefore, the prosecution must answer those questions if they want to secure a conviction. And the defense would benefit from keeping such questions active in the jury’s mind, if possible, raising doubts about whether the defendant could have committed the crime.

Questions of motive and timing show that criminal trials are often about more than strictly determining whether the prosecution has proven the elements of the crime. They also try to answer the very human questions of why people commit crimes.

You have permission to publish this article electronically or in print, free of charge, provided the bylines are included and all links remain active. A courtesy copy of your post would be appreciated.