Although motive and intent are often used interchangeably, they are different concepts in criminal law. Motive deals with a person`s underlying reasons for committing a crime, while intent refers to their willingness to perform certain acts related to the crime. A hate crime is a crime that requires proof of a specific motive. In general, a hate crime is motivated by the defendant`s belief in a protected status of the victim, such as the victim`s religion, gender, disability, customs or national origin. In states that prosecute hate crimes, prosecutors must prove that the accused was motivated by hostility to a protected status of the victim. Hate crime laws are exceptions to the general rule that proof of motive is not required in law enforcement. There are four different ways in which a defendant`s motive may be relevant to criminal liability. The motive may be completely incriminating or exculpatory or only partially incriminating or exculpatory. If someone has acted with a certain motive, lawful conduct becomes illegal, and that is when the motive is totally criminal. If illegal activities with a particular motive do not hold a defendant liable, then that motive is entirely exculpatory. If a motive does not provide sufficient defense for a crime, the motive is partially exculpatory.
If a motive indicates the type of offence for which the defendant is responsible, the motive is partially incriminating.  A motive is the cause that causes people to take a certain measure.  In criminal law, the motive itself is not an element of a particular crime; However, the legal system generally allows motive to be proven in order to make plausible the reasons why the accused committed a crime, at least if those motives are unclear or difficult to identify. However, a reason is not necessary to reach a judgment.  Motives are also used in other aspects of a specific case, such as when police are initially investigating.  MOTIVATION. The inducement, cause or reason why something is done. 2. If there is such an error in the ground that, if the truth had been known, the contract would have been concluded, it is generally null and void., If, for example, after the death of Titius, of whom he knew nothing, a man had to insure his life, the error of motive would avoid the contract.
Toull. Dr. Civ. Fr. liv. 3, c. 2, art. 1.
Or, if Titius sold his horse to Livy, which both parties assumed to live some distance from the place where the contract had been concluded, even if the horse had actually died, the contract would be null and void. Poth. Sale, No. 4; 2 Kent, Com. 367. If the contract is concluded in circumstances of obvious error or surprise, it will not be executed. Consult the following authorities on this subject. 1 Russ. & M.
527; 1 ves. Jr. 221; 4 prizes, 135; 1 ves. Jr. 210; Atkinson on Titl. 144. See cause; Consideration. 3.
The motive for the accusation is often investigated, in particular when the prosecutor is a witness, and in his case, as in the case of any other witness, if the request is found to be wrong, as revenge for real or perceived harm, the credibility of the witness is significantly weakened. However, this alone will not make him incompetent. See the evidence; Witness. The motive is not always necessary to prove a crime, as other evidence may suffice. While there is reasonable cause as to why a person would have committed a crime, a motive alone is not sufficient if there is no other evidence as to why a particular accused is guilty. Generally, a person`s motive can be determined by taking into account various factors that lead to the commission of the crime. For example, if Bill hit Barry, an investigation into the facts could reveal that Barry stole Bill`s watch, giving Bill a reason to beat him. While investigators may be able to determine a person`s motive, this does not link them to the crime; The prosecutor does not have to prove that the accused had a reason for criminal conduct. However, a judge or jury may consider the reason when hearing the case. The motive is generally used in the criminal law context to explain why a person acted in a certain way or refused to act – for example, to support the prosecutor`s assertion that the accused committed the crime. If a person charged with murder was the beneficiary of life insurance for the deceased, prosecutors could argue that greed was the motive for the murder. For example, if an accused denies having committed the crime, he or she may present evidence that he or she had no motive to commit the crime and argue that the lack of motive supports the hypothesis that he or she did not commit the crime.
For the same reason, the prosecution may present evidence that the defendant had the motive to commit the offence, arguing that the motive supports the hypothesis that the defendant committed the crime.