I understand the logic of "hate crime", and I'd argue there are definitely cases where it's a valuable distinction (ie, spraypainting swastikas on tombstones in a Jewish cemetery probably should be punished more severely than a normal generic "grafitti/vandalism" offense would justify).
But at a certain point, it doesn't really matter why you're doing something. Killing someone because they're black/gay/Jewish/etc arguably isn't all that much worse than killing someone because you find them annoying/because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time/because it's Tuesday, and there really isn't a need for an entirely new classification of crime.
If you go out of your way to kill someone because of their minority status, then that's just premeditated murder, and it's already the most severe type of murder we have punishment for. We don't really need extra classifications that only muddy the waters even more and fall into the trap of subjectivity (if a white guy kills a black guy, did he kill him solely because he was black, or would he have killed him even if he was white? That's a REALLY hard case to honestly argue in court).
Pretty sure in this cause though it was because the church was frequented by black people. I mean a white meth head murdering a black dude for his wallet wouldn't really be a hate crime imo just typical robbery and murder.