Oregon
How Durham v. United States applies in Oregon: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Criminal Law.
Oregon follows the M'Naghten rule for insanity defenses, emphasizing that a defendant must demonstrate substantial incapacity to understand the nature of their act or differentiate between right and wrong due to mental illness. While Durham introduced a broader test, Oregon maintains its adherence to the stricter criteria established by the M'Naghten standard.
In Oregon, a person is not criminally responsible for their conduct if, at the time of the conduct, due to a severe mental disease or defect, they lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of their conduct or to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law.
The defendant was found not guilty by reason of insanity after demonstrating severe mental illness rendered him unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions.
The court upheld the M'Naghten rule when determining the defendant's criminal responsibility, emphasizing the necessity of the defendant's ability to distinguish right from wrong.
The court clarified the burden of proof for the insanity defense, asserting that it rests on the defendant to establish the defense by a preponderance of the evidence.
Oregon's approach to insanity defenses retains a stricter adherence to the M'Naghten standard, differing from jurisdictions that may incorporate the Durham Rule or a combination of tests that provide broader definitions of insanity. This results in higher threshold standards for defendants in Oregon to successfully claim an insanity defense compared to some federal or state systems that may be more lenient.
The topic of insanity defenses, particularly the distinctions among various standards, is relevant for the Oregon bar exam, particularly in the context of criminal law topics involving mental state and defenses.