There are other factors that the Judge or jury may be asked to consider in determining intention. They may also be asked to consider possible motives for a person’s actions. Motive is distinguishable from intent. Intent refers to the necessary mental element of guilt. A crime requires criminal intention to be proved. It is the mens rea, or the criminal intent, that the Crown must prove to establish guilt. Motive relates to a possible reason for a person’s actions.
However, not all crimes require proof of this level of intention. Sometimes guilt is proven if the accused is reckless as to the consequences of his actions. These are crimes of criminal negligence. A man may drive a car so recklessly that he causes an accident and other persons are injured or killed. He may not have intended to kill anyone, but his negligence, his recklessness as to the consequences of his actions, may be enough for a Judge or jury to find guilt. The Crown is not required to prove a motive to commit the crime to obtain a conviction. But motive may be relevant to establish guilt.
Evidence of motive, or absence of motive, is relevant and admissible. Proof of motive is not required to prove the crime. It is not an essential element of the Crown’s case. The absence of motive may be relevant to the Defence. The accused may argue that he did not commit the crime. Part of the evidence that supports this conclusion is that the accused was without any motive to commit the crime. Evidence of motive, or its absence, requires the Judge or jury to consider its presence or absence.
The above is the an excerpt of Patrick J Ducharme’s book, Canadian Criminal Procedure, available at Amazon or in bulk through MedicaLegal Publishing along with Criminal Trial Strategies.
Subscribe to Patrick Ducharme’s Youtube Channel