Diversion.

Plain English Breakdown

The bill summary text does not provide specific details on how courts will interpret 'substantial and undue risk'.

Changes to Mental Health Diversion Programs

This legislation modifies existing laws about mental health diversion programs, requiring courts to find that a defendant's recent mental disorder diagnosis was significant in committing an offense and changing the standard for denying diversion based on public safety risks.

What This Bill Does

• Requires the court to determine if a defendant’s mental disorder diagnosed within five years of the current offense was a significant factor in committing it, unless there is clear evidence that it wasn't.
• Changes the denial criteria from 'more likely than not' risk to 'substantial and undue risk' when considering public safety threats.
• Specifies that a qualified mental health expert must confirm the proposed treatment plan's clinical appropriateness and effectiveness for addressing symptoms.
• Requires courts to state their reasons on record if they deny a defendant’s eligibility for diversion.

Who It Names or Affects

• Courts handling cases involving defendants with recent mental disorder diagnoses
• Defendants who might qualify for pretrial diversion programs

Terms To Know

Pretrial Diversion

A program that allows certain criminal defendants to receive treatment instead of facing regular court proceedings.

Mental Disorder Diagnosis

An official determination by a medical professional that someone has a mental health condition.

Limits and Unknowns

• The bill does not specify what happens if the diagnosis is older than five years.
• It remains unclear how courts will interpret 'substantial and undue risk' in practice.

Official Summary Text

AB 46, as amended, Nguyen.
Diversion.
Existing law authorizes a court to grant pretrial diversion to a defendant suffering from a mental disorder, on an accusatory pleading alleging the commission of a misdemeanor or felony offense, in order to allow the defendant to undergo mental health treatment. Existing law provides that a defendant is eligible for diversion if they have been diagnosed with certain mental disorders and the court finds that the mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense, unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the disorder was not a motivating, causal, or contributing factor to the defendant’s involvement in the alleged offense. Existing law prohibits defendants charged with specified offenses, including murder, from being placed in this diversion program.
This bill
would, if the defendant has been diagnosed
with a mental disorder within 5 years of the current offense, as specified, require the court to find that the defendant’s mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the offense, unless there is a preponderance of evidence that it was not a motivating, causal, or contributing factor to the defendant’s involvement in
would require that the diagnosis with a mental disorder be within 5 years before
the alleged offense.
Existing law makes a defendant
eligible
suitable
for this diversion program if, among other criteria,
a qualified mental health expert opines that the
defendant’s symptoms of the mental disorder that caused, contributed to, or motivated the criminal behavior, would respond to mental health treatment and
the defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety if treated in the community, as specified.
The bill would
specify that a court retains discretion to deny diversion, even if a defendant is otherwise suitable for diversion, upon a finding that it is more likely than not that the defendant will pose an unreasonable risk to the physical safety of another person.
revise that standard and instead require the court to find that the defendant will not pose a substantial and undue risk to the physical safety of another person if treated in the community. The bill would require the mental health expert’s
opinion to include that the proposed mental health diversion plan is clinically appropriate to address the symptoms of the defendant’s mental disorder, as specified.
The bill would require the court to state the reasons for denial on the record.

Current Bill Text

Download Bill PDF