Operation Motive Trivia Quiz

Answer: Psychological

When trying to understand why a person committed a crime, one of the first things investigators try to figure out is whether there was a motive, and if so, what it was. A scientific approach to identifying motive is helpful because it is the closest thing investigators have to reach conclusions about what motivates criminals to commit dozens of different crimes.

As Brent Turvey, a renowned American criminal profiler and researcher, has pointed out, it is impossible to read people's minds, which is why motives can only be inferred and then later confirmed by evidence.

Answer: Mens rea

Motive and intent are two terms that are often confused by the general public, and though they are not the same, they do have important connections between them. Criminal profilers and professionals in law enforcement distinguish between "mens rea" and "actus reus": "mens rea" means "guilty mind" and refers to whether a criminal had given thought to their actions before the act and if they meant or knew they would cause harm, while "actus reus" is the actual behavior that occurred in the commission of the crime.

Both police and prosecutors believe that determining motive in their cases will help them because it could assist in understanding the criminal's background, motivation, and perhaps planning of one or multiple crimes.

Answer: Murder

State v. Condit (1925) was a case that reached Missouri's Supreme Court after a trial in the Circuit Court of Andrew County found Emma Condit and a co-indictee Bert Whittaker guilty of murdering Condit's husband. Justice John Turner White wrote the opinion for that case and in it, and he began the opinion by pointing out that Whittaker's testimony was "almost the sole evidence" against Ms. Condit. Roy Condit, the victim, was found dead on April 8, 1923 severely beaten down.

The State of Missouri prosecutors believed Emma had murdered Roy to collect life insurance monies, but in the initial trial, evidence was excluded that would contribute to Condit's argument that she did not need this money.

The Justice ultimately found that the evidence should've been admissible since it would've helped the appellant (Emma Condit) prove her motive or motivation for the alleged murder couldn't have been the life insurance.

Answer: No

To be convicted of first-degree murder, the prosecution must prove a variety of elements including intent, premeditation, deliberation, and malice. In State v. Forrest, defendant John Forrest was appealing his conviction of first-degree murder for killing his own father.

The reason he did this, he alleged, is that his dad was in excruciating pain in the hospital and was diagnosed with an untreatable condition. As a result, Forrest decided to take matters into his own hands and kill his father to end his suffering. Though he openly admitted to the murder, he rejected the notion of first-degree murder because he believed there was no malice in the act.

The court held that regardless of any moral principles, the law states that premeditation and deliberation are important elements of this murder charge and they were both fulfilled here, given that the victim had not provoked the attack and it must have involved prior planning.

Answer: Kim Ford

State v. Willis (1982) examined motive as one of the primary elements in the decision, and defined motive themselves as "the moving course, the impulse, the desire that induces criminal action on the part of the accused". This definition is similar to others that have been published over the years, including in works by criminal profilers like Brent Turvey. Motive is often closely connected to evidence because physical evidence is one of the best ways to prove or suggest the motivation for a crime.

For example, in the Missouri Court of Appeals case in question, defendant James Marshall Willis was arguing against his 25-year imprisonment conviction by a lower court for assault in the first degree. He asked for a reversal of these charges because of errors in how the evidence was admitted, which the court granted and hence remanded a new trial.

The facts of the case spell out that victim Onzell Williams and his girlfriend Kim Ford were in their car when Willis pulled out a gun and shot Williams twice.

The State had introduced a life insurance policy in Williams' name as possible motive for the crime, but the court ruled that there was no evidence to show that the defendant knew that insurance policy even existed, therefore reversing the conviction.

Answer: Arkansas

The facts of the case, as one of the Arkansas Supreme Court Justices described in the opinion, are "heart-rending". Ronnie Midgett consistently abused his son Ronnie Jr. physically by hitting and choking him multiple times. The child died from one of the injuries caused by his father's brutal beating and was convicted of first-degree murder, but Midgett appealed the conviction because he argued there was no premeditation or intent to kill his son.

The Justices agreed that as despicable as Midgett's actions were, the law required proven premeditation and deliberation for such a conviction, and these elements weren't there because if he had wanted to kill him, he would've done it in one of the previous beatings. Even though Midgett's sentence did get reduced to second-degree murder, the Arkansas legislature changed the statute shortly after the decision to include the murder of a child fourteen or younger with "malicious indifference to human life" within the definition of first-degree murder.

Answer: Title VII: Equal employment opportunity

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a historical piece of legislation in the United States. The act, signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson (following the assassination of President Kennedy), outlawed different types of discrimination in an attempt to end segregationist practices against Black Americans, particularly in Southern states. The Civil Rights Act impacted many areas of daily life: schools, allocation of federal funds, voting, and employment, among others.

Title VII specifically addresses employment discrimination and prohibits employers from making discriminatory hiring practices based on "race, color, religion, sex or national origin". Among the categories of discrimination included in the title is "mixed motive discrimination", which means that if employers fire a person for a legitimate reason AND motivated by one of the aforementioned factors, it may still be assessed as discrimination.

Answer: Price Waterhouse

This fascinating case started at the District Court for the District of Columbia and made its way to the Supreme Court after two verdicts in favor of Hopkins. Price Waterhouse had become one of the most important accounting firms in the world (and continues to be one of the "Big Four" now as PriceWaterhouseCoopers).

The plaintiff, Ann Hopkins, worked for the company as a management accountant in 1983. She applied for a promotion to partner and was qualified for this job, but she was denied this promotion twice. Men in the company overwhelmingly received more promotions than women, and in addition, the feedback Hopkins received as to why she was passed for the job were sexist reasons like being too aggressive or failing to dress and act in a more feminine way. Upset with this stereotypical view of women, Hopkins sued Price Waterhouse for discrimination on the basis of sex, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (equal employment opportunity).

A district court and an appeals court both agreed in ruling for the plaintiff, but disagreed on the standard of proof that the evidence provided. Ultimately, the case was taken to the U.S. Supreme Court, which again ruled for Hopkins and argued that companies cannot make hiring decisions exclusively based on sex or gender characteristics.

Answer: Motive was not considered an element of first degree assault

In State v. Friend, Clarence Friend was appealing a sentence of 25 years in prison for first-degree assault. In 1987, police officer Mark LaRose was shot at the conclusion of a high-speed car chase. A search of the suspect's car revealed ammunition, bank deposit slips, and alcohol. Friend was arrested after his house was searched and a gun consistent with the rounds from the car was found. Friend appealed his sentence based on the admissibility of evidence used to convict him.

The defendant asked the appeals court to reverse the judgment because according to him, the evidence that showed Friend robbed a liquor store and then fled was incorrectly used to establish motive for the officer's shooting.

The defendant argued that motive was not an element of first-degree assault and that there was no connection between the burglary and the shooting.

The appeals court rejected these arguments because they deemed motive to be an important element to determine whether the criminal act occurred, its perpetrator, and the reason behind the crime.

Answer: Gun

In People v. Leach, the prosecutors for the State of New York appealed a finding of a trial court that had nullified a "guilty" verdict. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether the case should've been dismissed by the court and whether the evidence was enough to prove the crime.

The facts of the case narrate that Anthony Holston was found dead on April 14, 1973, with broken glass and blood around him, and the probable cause of death was attributed to a gunshot to the head. Even though the defendant was found guilty, the trial court reversed the verdict by granting a nunc pro tunc motion.

The state's Supreme Court disagreed, finding that there was plenty of evidence to establish motive, that the defendant had clearly lied, and that the wound showed that the crime was intentional.

The case was remanded for sentencing.