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 allege lack of motive or opportunity as part of their defense. But is motivation and opportunity required to condemn?
Every crime has what are called elements. The elements of the crime are those that must be proven to convict the accused. 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 used so often in court?
The motive is why 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 compel him to kill.
Although proving the defendant’s guilt is not required, the motive is often heavily 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, potentially sentencing them to life in prison or even death.
The opportunity to commit the crime is a little more obvious. Opportunity is also a staple that people want to see tested, even if it’s 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 accused 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 guilty, they are things any jury would want to know. Therefore, the prosecution must answer those questions if it wants to secure a conviction. And the defense would benefit from keeping such questions active in the jury’s mind, if possible, raising questions about whether the defendant could have committed the crime.
The questions of motive and opportunity 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 byline lines are included and all links remain active. A courtesy copy of your publication would be appreciated.
