Saturday, November 05, 2016

TRIAL JUDGE CORRECT, PROSECUTION DOES NOT HAVE TO PROVE MOTIVE IN CONSPIRACY CASE

Although new Jersey governor Chris Christie was not charged in this case, he may be next, and this trial of 2 public officials has drawn national attention.  In the conspiracy (and other charges) trial over the closing of bridges in New Jersey, the judge refused to instruct the jury that they had to find that the prosecution had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the motive for the conspiracy to block traffic was to punish a mayor.  The defense disagreed and overstated it's positon, but the judge was correct.  If the statute does not have a motive element, and most statutes don't, motive does not have to be proven.  For instance most homicide statutes have no motive element and the prosecution does not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt why the defendant did the killing.   An exception would be, for example, a statute making it a crime to intentionally and unlawfully set fire to a building to defraud the company insuring the building.  The prosecution there has to prove both the fire and the motive-- that it was done to try to defraud the insurance company.
Evidence of motive is always admissible, but motive does not have to be proven if it is not in the statute.  Mention of motive in the indictment is not controlling.  The defense is always free to try to show that the defendant had no motive to commit the alleged crime.
UPDATE: The defendants were convicted and will appeal.

No comments:

Post a Comment