Can a jury reasonably infer a "motive" to kill the victim?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Beltran, E070728 (Cal. App. 2020):
jury could reasonably infer a "motive" to kill the victim'; and (3) 'facts about the nature of the killing from which the jury could infer that the manner of killing was so particular and exacting that the defendant must have intentionally killed according to a "preconceived design."' [Citation.]" (People v. Rivera (2019) 7 Cal.5th 306, 324.)
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
Is there any case law where a jury reasonably could reasonably find that a murder victim had motive for the killing? (California, United States of America)
What is the scope of an allegation of sexual assault brought by a victim's abuser against the victim's family members and/or potential victims? (California, United States of America)
What is the difference between a reasonable and unreasonable plaintiff and a reasonable plaintiff under a "reasonable implied assumption of risk" approach? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for reasonable inference to establish material facts such as identity, intent or motive? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for evidence that the appellant could reasonably reasonably reasonably expect the appellant to have knowledge of a crime? (California, United States of America)
Does a defense based on a reasonable but mistaken belief in the victim's capacity to give legal consent have to have been objectively reasonable? (California, United States of America)
Is discovered a crime discovered when either the victim or law enforcement learns of facts which, if investigated with reasonable diligence, would make the victim aware of the crime? (California, United States of America)
What is a reasonable inference for a judge to conclude that a person who has not been convicted of a crime has committed a crime by way of reasoning? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for discovering an offense discovered when either the victim or law enforcement learns of facts which, if investigated with reasonable diligence, would make the victim aware of the crime? (California, United States of America)
Is there a reasonable likelihood that a jury would have understood the language of CALCRIM No. 370 to mean that motive is exempt from the rule requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
