 |
 |
 |
| |
|
|
Durham v U. S.
U. S. Ct. App. 1954
Author:- Sam Biers
Mental Disease or Defect - Product Test
Relevant Facts: Df has a long history of imprisonment and hospitalization, [he was discharged from the Navy and several hospital visits after a psychiatric examinations had shown that he suffered 'from personality disorders]. He attempted suicide, and later his conduct within the first few days in jail led to a lunacy inquiry. He was diagnosed as suffering from 'psychosis with psychopathic personality. He was readmitted to hospital and this time the diagnosis was 'without mental disorder, psychopathic personality.' He was discharged for the third time and the housebreaking which is the subject of the present appeal took place two months later. He was 'mentally competent to stand trial and able to consult with counsel to properly assist in his own defense.' He was thereupon brought before the court on the charge involved here.
Legal Issue(s): Whether the existing tests of criminal responsibility are obsolete and therefor the court should adopt a new test?
Court’s Holding: Yes, both right and wrong and irresistible impulse tests are inadequate.
Procedure: Convicted of housebreaking by the D Ct sitting without a jury.
Law or Rule(s): A defendant is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or mental defect.
Court Rationale: Mental disease is a condition considered capable of either improving or deteriorating. Mental defect is a condition which is not capable of improving or deteriorating, and results from injury, physical or mental disease, or it is congenital. When a lack of mental capacity is raised as a defense to a charge of crime, the law presumes that the defendant is sane, but as soon as some evidence of mental disorder is introduced, sanity must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt as part of prosecution's case. Whenever some evidence of disease or defect is raised, the trial ct. must provide the jury with guides for determining whether the accused
Plaintiff’s Argument: Jurors should be told that every man is to be presumed sane, and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes, until the contrary is proved by the defendant.
Defendant’s Argument: The df is not responsible for his unlawful act when it was the product of mental disease or defect.
reverse the conviction (1) because the trial court did not correctly apply existing rules governing the burden of proof on the defense of insanity, and (2) because existing tests of criminal responsibility are obsolete and should be superseded.
Trial ct’s holding that there was no evidence of alleged housebreaker's mental state as of date when crime was committed, and that presumption of sanity therefore prevailed, was prejudicial and required reversal.