Durham Rule Acquittal
Aaron Adams faces arson charges after setting a fire during a psychotic episode. Evidence shows he would not have acted but for his schizophrenia. The court acquits him because the offense resulted from his mental disease.
Also known as: acquits · acquitted · acquitting · acquittal · not guilty · discharge
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A judicial determination that a defendant is not guilty of the charged criminal offense.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Aaron Adams faces arson charges after setting a fire during a psychotic episode. Evidence shows he would not have acted but for his schizophrenia. The court acquits him because the offense resulted from his mental disease.
Brian Bates stands trial for assault. He proves a disease of the mind caused a defect in reasoning so that he lacked capacity to know his actions were wrongful. The court acquits him under the M'Naghten rule.
Carla Crane faces burglary charges. Evidence establishes that mental illness prevented her from conforming conduct to the law. The court acquits her under the irresistible impulse test.
Adam Anderson was acquitted of theft. Prosecutors later charge him with robbery arising from the same conduct. The second prosecution is barred because each offense requires proof of a fact the other does not and addresses a different harm.
David Drake faces conspiracy charges with two alleged co-conspirators. The factfinder acquits both alleged co-conspirators. The court must acquit Drake because conspiracy requires at least two guilty parties.
Evan Ellis is tried for arson. He shows the offense was the product of schizophrenia under the Durham rule. The court acquits him on grounds of mental disease or defect.
A defendant receives an acquittal when the charged offense resulted from a mental disease or defect. The offense qualifies as the product of the condition if the defendant would not have committed the crime but for the mental disease or defect.
Supporting sources
The defendant must prove a disease of the mind caused a defect in reasoning. As a result, at the time of the conduct the defendant lacked capacity to know the actions were wrongful or to understand their nature and quality.
Supporting sources
Yes. Conspiracy requires at least two guilty parties. If the factfinder acquits every other person alleged to have conspired, the state cannot obtain a conviction against the lone remaining defendant.
Supporting sources
…that is, "in a reasonable sense," to include a serious and permanent threat to the mother's health , and instructed the jury to acquit Dr. Bourne if it found he had acted in a good-faith belief that the abortion was necessary for this purpose. Id. , at 693-694. The jury did acquit. Recently, Parliament enacted a new…