Is there any error in instructing the jury that the prosecution does not need to prove motive but must prove specific intent to assist, promote, or further criminal conduct by gang members?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Miller, G041850 (Cal. App. 6/26/2009), G041850 (Cal. App. 2009):
Motive and specific intent are not the same thing. "`Motive, intent, and malicecontrary to appellant's assumptionare separate and disparate mental states. The words are not synonyms. Their separate definitions were accurate and appropriate.' [Citation.] 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.) There was no error in instructing the jury that the prosecution did not need to prove motive, while also instructing the jury that specific intent to assist, promote, or further criminal conduct by gang members must be proven.
"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.
