Source: https://opd.ohio.gov/The-Library/Criminal-Law-Casebook/Motive
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 18:45:48+00:00

Document:
State v. Crotts, 104 Ohio St. 3d 432, 2004-Ohio-6550 -- Though generally disparaging the introduction of evidence suggesting homosexuality, the court ultimately sides with the trial court's ruling that challenged exhibits and testimony were admissible to show motive.
State v. Nucklos, 171 Ohio App. 3d 38, 2007-Ohio-1025 -- Mention of a "civil judgment" facing an MD was proper in order to explain motive for operating what the state claimed was a one day a week, out of town, cash only oxycontin practice.
State v. Lancaster (1958), 167 Ohio St. 391 -- Paragraphs one and two of the syllabus: "(1) In a murder case, evidence of motive or lack thereof upon the part of the accused is relevant and material. (2) Motive is not an element of the crime of murder and need not be established to warrant a conviction; proof of motive does not establish innocence; and, where the guilt of the accused is shown beyond a reasonable doubt, it is immaterial what the motive may have been for the crime, or whether any motive is shown."
State v. Diamond (February 21, 1978), Franklin Co. App. No. 77AP-730, unreported (1978 Opinions 396) -- It was error for court to exclude evidence that a shoplifting defendant worked two jobs generating a reasonable income to show lack of motive to steal. Also see State v. Garland (October 27, 1977), Franklin Co. App. No. 77AP-373, unreported (1977 Opinions 3777, 3784).
State v. Nichols (1996), 116 Ohio App. 3d 759, 765 -- Defendant's drug usage was used to establish a motive to rob. Counsel's failure to enter proper objections led to reversal because representation was ineffective. Motive may eliminate uncertainty when the evidence is scant, but it cannot be used as affirmative proof.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.