How have courts interpreted the term "motive" and "intent" in the context of a criminal charge?

This argument is wholly unpersuasive. Intent and motive are not the same thing: "Motive describes the reason a person chooses to commit a crime. The reason, however, is different from a required mental state such as intent or malice." (People v. Hillhouse (2002) 27 Cal.4th 469, 504; accord, People v. Wilson (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1, 22 [no reasonable likelihood jury understood terms motive and intent to be synonymous where instructions did not use them interchangeably].) CALCRIM No. 370 applies to a defendant's motive in committing the crimes of which he was charged. CALCRIM No. 3472, on the other hand applies to a defendant's intent in provoking a fight as a pretext for a criminal use of force, not to the motive for committing the crimes themselves. Informing the jury that the People did not have to prove a motive for the crimes did not relieve the prosecution of the burden to prove defendant did not act in self-defense.

Page 12

Defendant also contends that the multiple instructional errors he alleges constituted cumulative error. In light of the conclusions we have reached as to his individual claims, there was no cumulative effect requiring reversal. (See People v. Tully (2012) 54 Cal.4th 952, 1061.)