Durfee test in Michigan

2008As was explained in People v. Martin, 386 Mich. 407, 418 , 192 N.W.2d 215 (1971), the "salient elements" of the Durfee test were: "1) whether defendant knew what he was doing was right or wrong; and 2) if he did, did he have the power, the will power, to resist doing the wrongful act?" If a defendant was found not guilty by reason of insanity, by statute, he was automatically committed for an indeterminate period to the Department of Mental Health for treatment in an appropriate state hospital.

2008As was explained in People v. Martin, 386 Mich. 407, 418 , 192 N.W.2d 215 (1971), the "salient elements" of the Durfee test were: "1) whether defendant knew what he was doing was right or wrong; and 2) if he did, did he have the power, the will power, to resist doing the wrongful act?" If a defendant was found not guilty by reason of insanity, by statute, he was automatically committed for an indeterminate period to the Department of Mental Health for treatment in an appropriate state hospital.

1971See Glueek, Law Psychiatry, (The Johns Hopkins Press, 1962); Gohen, Criminal Responsibility and the Knowledge of Right and Wrong, 14 U Miami L Rev 30 (1959). 3 People v. Markham (1969), 19 Mich App 616 ; People v. Morris (1968), 10 Mich App 526 . 4 The Michigan Legislature presently has before it the Michigan Revised Criminal Code (Pinal Draft, September 1967).

1969However, we are not free to act on this speculation and alter the long approved Durfee test.” 6 See also People v. Morris (1968), 10 Mich App 526 . *630 We find that the so-called Currens test and the Model Penal Code test (Model Penal Code § 4.01) also advocated by the defendant, on appeal, can be disposed of in a like manner, along with the Durham test.

2008People v. McQuillan, 392 Mich. 511 , 518 n. 1, 519, 221 N.W.2d 569 (1974).

2008People v. McQuillan, 392 Mich. 511 , 518 n. 1, 519, 221 N.W.2d 569 (1974).

1980The Durfee rule prevailed, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court shortly before the Legislature’s codification of the insanity defense in People v Martin, 386 Mich 407, 418 ; 192 NW2d 215 (1971), cert den sub nom Lewis v Michigan, 408 US 929 ; 92 S Ct 2505 ; 33 L Ed 2d 342 (1972).

1980The Durfee rule prevailed, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court shortly before the Legislature’s codification of the insanity defense in People v Martin, 386 Mich 407, 418 ; 192 NW2d 215 (1971), cert den sub nom Lewis v Michigan, 408 US 929 ; 92 S Ct 2505 ; 33 L Ed 2d 342 (1972).

1980The Durfee rule prevailed, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court shortly before the Legislature’s codification of the insanity defense in People v Martin, 386 Mich 407, 418 ; 192 NW2d 215 (1971), cert den sub nom Lewis v Michigan, 408 US 929 ; 92 S Ct 2505 ; 33 L Ed 2d 342 (1972).

1980The Durfee rule prevailed, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court shortly before the Legislature’s codification of the insanity defense in People v Martin, 386 Mich 407, 418 ; 192 NW2d 215 (1971), cert den sub nom Lewis v Michigan, 408 US 929 ; 92 S Ct 2505 ; 33 L Ed 2d 342 (1972).

1971See Glueek, Law Psychiatry, (The Johns Hopkins Press, 1962); Gohen, Criminal Responsibility and the Knowledge of Right and Wrong, 14 U Miami L Rev 30 (1959). 3 People v. Markham (1969), 19 Mich App 616 ; People v. Morris (1968), 10 Mich App 526 . 4 The Michigan Legislature presently has before it the Michigan Revised Criminal Code (Pinal Draft, September 1967).

1971See Glueek, Law Psychiatry, (The Johns Hopkins Press, 1962); Gohen, Criminal Responsibility and the Knowledge of Right and Wrong, 14 U Miami L Rev 30 (1959). 3 People v. Markham (1969), 19 Mich App 616 ; People v. Morris (1968), 10 Mich App 526 . 4 The Michigan Legislature presently has before it the Michigan Revised Criminal Code (Pinal Draft, September 1967).

1971In People v. Krugman (1966), 377 Mich 559 , the Supreme Court refused to consider a change in the insanity test in Michigan and left the Durfee test standing.

1971In People v. Krugman (1966), 377 Mich 559 , the Supreme Court refused to consider a change in the insanity test in Michigan and left the Durfee test standing.

1971Lewis, Jr. (1971), 31 Mich App 91 ; People v. Getterson (1971), 31 Mich App 124 . 4 “Michigan courts have, therefore, routinely applied a statement of law in which factors of mental disease or abnormality and its causal relationship with the acts giving rise to the criminal charge are controlling, and in which there is a minimum of judgmental terms like ‘nature’, ‘quality’, ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. *419 “The text of Section 705 does not in any significant way change the substance or operation of long-established Michigan case law; all that it does is to utilize a more contemporary terminology.’’ (E

1971Lewis, Jr. (1971), 31 Mich App 91 ; People v. Getterson (1971), 31 Mich App 124 . 4 “Michigan courts have, therefore, routinely applied a statement of law in which factors of mental disease or abnormality and its causal relationship with the acts giving rise to the criminal charge are controlling, and in which there is a minimum of judgmental terms like ‘nature’, ‘quality’, ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. *419 “The text of Section 705 does not in any significant way change the substance or operation of long-established Michigan case law; all that it does is to utilize a more contemporary terminology.’’ (E

1971Lewis, Jr. (1971), 31 Mich App 91 ; People v. Getterson (1971), 31 Mich App 124 . 4 “Michigan courts have, therefore, routinely applied a statement of law in which factors of mental disease or abnormality and its causal relationship with the acts giving rise to the criminal charge are controlling, and in which there is a minimum of judgmental terms like ‘nature’, ‘quality’, ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. *419 “The text of Section 705 does not in any significant way change the substance or operation of long-established Michigan case law; all that it does is to utilize a more contemporary terminology.’’ (E

1971Lewis, Jr. (1971), 31 Mich App 91 ; People v. Getterson (1971), 31 Mich App 124 . 4 “Michigan courts have, therefore, routinely applied a statement of law in which factors of mental disease or abnormality and its causal relationship with the acts giving rise to the criminal charge are controlling, and in which there is a minimum of judgmental terms like ‘nature’, ‘quality’, ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. *419 “The text of Section 705 does not in any significant way change the substance or operation of long-established Michigan case law; all that it does is to utilize a more contemporary terminology.’’ (E

1971So the law requires of a man that he will curb his passions and restrain himself, and, if he does not do it, holds him accountable, unless it is by reason of disease which renders him unable to do it.’ ” 6 See the jury instructions on the question of insanity in People v. Quimby (1903), 134 Mich 625 , in which case the Durfee test was *420 given.

1971So the law requires of a man that he will curb his passions and restrain himself, and, if he does not do it, holds him accountable, unless it is by reason of disease which renders him unable to do it.’ ” 6 See the jury instructions on the question of insanity in People v. Quimby (1903), 134 Mich 625 , in which case the Durfee test was *420 given.