courts
Defendants would need a newer diagnosis for mental health diversion
California’s SB 1373 would make it harder for some defendants with mental disorders to get mental health diversion, requiring a diagnosis or rediagnosis within five years of the offense and a tougher safety test for judges.
A California proposal would make it harder for some defendants to qualify for mental health diversion. SB 1373 says a diagnosis or rediagnosis would have to fall within five years of the offense, and judges would have to use a tougher safety standard when deciding whether diversion is appropriate.
- SB 1373 would require a mental disorder to be diagnosed or rediagnosed within five years of the offense.
- The bill would add more crimes, including human trafficking and child abuse, to the diversion exclusion list.
- It would change the safety standard judges use when deciding whether diversion is appropriate.
- The measure would affect defendants seeking treatment instead of a traditional criminal case.
- California already allows diversion for some defendants with mental disorders.
In California, mental health diversion can let some defendants get treatment instead of moving straight through the criminal process. A proposal in Sacramento would make that option harder to reach for some people with mental disorders.
The bill, SB 1373, would change the rules judges use when deciding whether a mental disorder counts as a significant factor in the offense. Under the proposal, that diagnosis would have to be recent. It would need to be diagnosed or rediagnosed within five years of the current offense.
What the bill would change
Today, courts can grant pretrial diversion to some defendants diagnosed with mental disorders if they meet the eligibility rules and the judge decides diversion is suitable. Diversion is a pause in the criminal case so the person can go into treatment.
SB 1373 would also add more offenses to the list of crimes that cannot be diverted. The bill text says that list would grow to include crimes such as human trafficking and child abuse, along with other excluded offenses already named in current law.
The proposal would also change how judges judge safety. Instead of asking whether the person poses an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, the court would look for a substantial and undue risk to the physical safety of another person. In making that call, a judge could consider the person’s prior history in diversion, the severity of injury to the victim, and other relevant factors.
Who would feel the effect
The biggest impact would fall on defendants with mental health diagnoses who are hoping for treatment instead of prosecution. Defense lawyers, prosecutors, and judges would all have a smaller lane to work with if the bill becomes law.
The bill would not change the basic idea behind diversion. It would still be a treatment-based option for some cases. But it would set a tighter time limit on the diagnosis and exclude more charges from the program, which would likely reduce the number of people who can ask for it.