What is Motive in a Criminal Case?

In criminal law, motive is often extremely important to establish for the prosecution.

Most people understand motive in clear-cut examples, such as in a murder case where a jealous lover is suspected of killing a rival. However, often it is far more difficult to determine.

Motive is not the same as simple “intent” and is usually defined as “ulterior intention”.

While a motive is not always needed when proving that a suspect has committed the crime in question (many people get convicted of crimes without proving motive), it often provides relevant circumstantial evidence that a judge or jury needs to consider and that can count towards a conviction.

A jealous lover may have an “ulterior intention” for murdering a rival and this may be considered alongside more conclusive evidence, like the blood of the victim found on the suspect’s clothing or the murder weapon found buried behind his/her house.

Alone, however, motive doesn’t mean that he/she did it. Other evidence is always necessary in criminal cases to put someone behind bars.

Principles of motive

The Supreme Court of Canada addressed motive in a 1979 case, establishing the following six principles of motive:

1. As evidence, motive is always relevant and hence evidence of motive is admissible.
2. Motive is no part of the crime and is legally irrelevant to criminal responsibility. It is not an essential element of the prosecution’s case as a matter of law.
3. Proved absence of motive is always an important fact in favour of the accused and ordinarily worthy of note in a charge to the jury.
4. Conversely, proved presence of motive may be an important factual ingredient in the Crown’s case, notably on the issues of identity and intention, when the evidence is purely circumstantial.
5. Motive is therefore always a question of fact and evidence and the necessity of referring to motive in the charge to the jury falls within the general duty of the trial judge “to not only outline the theories of the prosecution and defence but to give the jury matters of evidence essential in arriving at a just conclusion.”
6. Each case will turn on its own unique set of circumstances. The issue of motive is always a matter of degree.

In a more recent case in 2019, the Supreme Court stated the following:

“Where motive does not form an essential element of the offence, the necessity of charging a jury on the subject depends upon the course of the trial and the nature and probative value of the evidence adduced”.

Definition of motive vs intent

Motive and intent should not be used interchangeably though they frequently are. It’s best to define both so that the differences are clear:

Definition of motive

A person’s motive deals with the underlying reasons for committing a crime. It can usually be determined by looking at various factors leading up to the commission of the crime.

Definition of intent (specific and general)

Intent refers to a person’s conscious decision (willingness) to commit an act that violates state or federal laws.

Intent is often an element of an offense that the prosecutor must prove to achieve a conviction. For instance, the crime of assault causing bodily harm in Canada (also known as battery) is the act of intending to apprehend or cause harm to another individual through offensive contact.

It is usually necessary to prove that the suspect intentionally touched or struck the victim to achieve a conviction. If the defense proves that the contact was not intentional, the defendant should be acquitted.

Note that in Canadian criminal law, intent may be general or specific. General intent refers to a person’s aim to engage in an act that violated a law, rather than produce the specific action that resulted. So, if a person intentionally punched another person, he/she could be convicted of assault causing bodily harm even if the intention was not to break the other person’s jaw.

Specific intent is where the person who punched the other person intended to carry out the unlawful act and break the other person’s jaw.

When is motive established?

For motive evidence to be admissible, it must actually prove motive. The court recognized in a 2016 case that “animosity or hostility is not the same as motive”.

So, in other words, just because a person has negative feelings towards someone, it doesn’t mean that they had the motive to commit a crime against them. Otherwise, there would be a lot of people wrongly accused of crimes in Canada and the law would be prejudiced against anyone who had these feelings but never acted upon them.

In criminal cases, the trial judge will decide whether motive is admissible in the case or not to ensure the fairness and integrity of the criminal process.

For criminal defence lawyers like Cory Wilson, proving the absence of motive may be an important element of raising reasonable doubt and, therefore, increasing the chance of acquittal for a defendant.

Sometimes, too, in criminal cases, motive can be relevant to the credibility of witnesses. For example, a witness may have the motive to give unfavourable or favourable testimony against a particular defendant and stand to gain from it. This can be of use to the prosecution or the defence team, depending on the circumstances.

Call us to arrange a confidential consultation

To speak with Cory Wilson or arrange a free, no-obligation consultation with Wilson Criminal Defence, call 403-978-6052 or email us here.