Also known as: Durham tests · Durham rule · Durham product test · product test
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A test for criminal insanity that entitles a defendant to acquittal when the charged offense resulted from a mental disease or defect. An offense qualifies as the product of such a condition when the defendant would not have committed the crime but for the mental disease or defect.
Damian Decker, a control-room technician with documented schizo-paranoid disorder, bypassed three safety interlocks at a nuclear facility while convinced federal agents had installed them to cause a blackout. Expert testimony established that the precise acts matched the content of his fixed delusions and that he would not have bypassed the interlocks absent the disease. The jury credited the testimony and returned a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.
Denise Donovan, a software engineer experiencing untreated psychosis, accessed a hospital network and deployed ransomware after forming delusions that the servers transmitted mind-control signals targeting her. Defense experts testified that she suffered from a long-standing psychotic disorder and would not have carried out the cyberattack but for that condition. The jury accepted the experts' opinions and acquitted her on insanity grounds.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
The Durham test focuses solely on whether the offense was the product of mental disease or defect through but-for causation. M'Naghten requires a defect of reason preventing knowledge of wrongfulness or the nature of the act. The irresistible impulse test requires inability to control conduct or conform to the law.
The jury must find that the defendant suffered from a mental disease or defect and that the charged offense was the product of that condition, meaning the defendant would not have committed the crime but for the mental disease or defect.
Supporting sources
Yes. When facts show the defendant would have committed the acts even without the mental disease, such as prior identical conduct for production quotas or a recent promotion denial, the offense is not the product of the disease and acquittal is unavailable.
Yes. The product test turns on causation rather than cognitive awareness of wrongfulness. Intentional conduct and knowledge of illegality do not defeat the defense if the jury finds the offense would not have occurred but for the mental disease.
…(adopting modern “product” test). But see United States v. Brawner , 471 F.2d 969 (D.C.Cir.1972) (abandoning Durham product test and adopting ALI-MPC test).[^disA-2] In Colorado, the test of criminal responsibility, which has been codified in section 16-8-101(1), is the “right from wrong” prong of the test announced…