California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Scheer, 68 Cal.App.4th 1009, 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 676 (Cal. App. 1998):
The presence of the same motive in both instances may be a contributing factor in finding a common plan or design. (See, e.g., People v. Lisenba (1939) 14 Cal.2d 403, 94 P.2d 569 [murder of two wives, each of whom apparently drowned accidentally, motivated by desire to collect on double-indemnity insurance policy for each wife].) In contrast, the converse is not [68 Cal.App.4th 1021] true. The manner in which the prior misconduct was committed, which is the focus of the common plan or design inquiry, does not give rise to a motive, i.e., incentive or impetus, for commission of the charged crime. A contrary conclusion would be a non sequitur.
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.