Durham v. United States
214 F.2d 862 (1954)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An accused is not criminally responsible if their unlawful act was the product of a mental disease or mental defect. This standard supersedes the M'Naghten 'right-wrong' and 'irresistible impulse' tests for insanity.
Facts:
- Beginning in 1945 at age 17, Monte Durham had a long history of mental illness, including multiple hospitalizations and a psychiatric discharge from the Navy.
- In 1947, while on probation for auto theft, Durham attempted suicide and was subsequently hospitalized at St. Elizabeths, where he was diagnosed with 'psychosis with psychopathic personality.'
- After being discharged as 'recovered' in July 1949, Durham violated parole and was again found to be of unsound mind by a jury in February 1951.
- He was readmitted to St. Elizabeths, this time diagnosed as 'without mental disorder, psychopathic personality,' and was discharged in May 1951.
- On July 13, 1951, approximately two months after his latest discharge, Durham committed housebreaking.
- Durham's mother testified that he suffered from hallucinations and seemed afraid of people immediately following his release in May 1951.
- A psychiatrist who examined Durham in September 1951 testified that Durham was of unsound mind and that this condition would have been present at the time of the housebreaking.
Procedural Posture:
- Monte Durham was indicted for housebreaking in the District of Columbia.
- He was tried in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, sitting without a jury.
- Durham asserted the defense of insanity.
- The trial judge found Durham guilty, concluding that his insanity had not been established under the prevailing 'right-wrong' and 'irresistible impulse' tests.
- The trial judge explicitly found there was 'no testimony concerning the mental state of the defendant as of' the date of the crime.
- Durham, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is an accused criminally responsible if their unlawful act was the product of a mental disease or mental defect?
Opinions:
Majority - Bazelon, Circuit Judge
No. An accused is not criminally responsible if their unlawful act was the product of a mental disease or mental defect. The court first held that the trial court erred by finding there was 'no testimony' of insanity, as the testimony from a psychiatrist and Durham's mother constituted 'some evidence' of a mental disorder, which should have shifted the burden to the prosecution to prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt. More significantly, the court found the existing legal tests for insanity to be obsolete and inadequate. The M'Naghten 'right-wrong' test was rejected as unscientific for its narrow focus on cognition, ignoring that mental illness affects the whole personality, including emotions and will. The supplementary 'irresistible impulse' test was also deemed insufficient because it fails to account for mental illnesses that lead to criminal acts through brooding and reflection rather than just sudden impulses. The court exercised its authority to reform the common law by adopting the 'product test,' which allows the jury to hear all relevant expert testimony about a defendant's mental condition and determine whether the criminal act was a product of that condition, thus better aligning legal standards with modern psychiatric knowledge.
Analysis:
The Durham decision marked a revolutionary departure from the long-standing M'Naghten rule, attempting to integrate modern psychiatric principles into the legal definition of insanity. By establishing the 'product test,' the court shifted the focus from a defendant's cognitive capacity to a broader inquiry into the causal relationship between mental illness and criminal behavior. This decision gave psychiatrists a more significant role in legal proceedings, allowing them to provide comprehensive testimony about a defendant's mental state rather than being confined to the narrow legal questions of the old tests. While influential, the Durham rule was later criticized for the ambiguity of the term 'product' and ultimately abandoned by the D.C. Circuit in United States v. Brawner (1972) in favor of the ALI test, but its impact spurred a nationwide re-evaluation of the insanity defense.
Unlock the full brief for Durham v. United States