SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY — Prosecutors are backing new legislation to revise California’s mental health diversion law, citing public safety concerns and recent court rulings that have shaped how the program is applied.

The bill would close gaps in the law by restoring judicial discretion and requiring courts to weigh those concerns.

“Addressing mental health issues with a nexus to the criminal justice system remains an important issue for all of us, but public safety should not be sacrificed in the face of violent crime,” said district attorney Jason Anderson. 

AB 46 will be heard in the Senate Public Safety Committee on March 17. 

Some individuals granted diversion later committed violent crimes

According to the district attorney, cases across California show that some individuals granted mental health diversion later committed violent crimes, including murder, attempted murder and domestic violence.

San Bernardino County case examples cited by prosecutors include:

• A man stabbed his wife in the face, neck and chest before two teenagers intervened, and emergency surgery saved her life. Despite an attempted murder charge, he was released under mental health diversion. 
• After a breakup, a woman deliberately drove into a 66-year-old man, causing a brain bleed that left him partially paralyzed. Despite felony charges, she was granted mental health diversion and released without bond.
• A man with prior violent felony convictions robbed an 83-year-old woman and was granted diversion, but violated the terms and was returned to custody within four months.

It is unclear how representative these cases are of diversion outcomes statewide.

Intended to provide treatment instead of incarceration

Mental health diversion, established under Penal Code §1001.36, was intended to provide treatment for individuals with mental illness instead of incarceration.

Supporters say the program can reduce reoffending by addressing underlying conditions.

A study by the RAND Corporation found that about 91% of participants who completed a diversion program did not have a new case filed after graduation.

Recent court rulings and statutory provisions have affected judges’ ability to deny diversion, shaping how courts apply the law.

According to the district attorney, under current law, once a defendant meets statutory criteria, judges have little discretion to deny diversion.

Courts have approved diversion in some cases without a clear treatment plan, including instances involving prior treatment failures, due to the statute’s language and appellate rulings.

According to prosecutors, once a defendant completes mental health diversion, the offense is dismissed and removed from their record.

Some officials say this could have public safety implications if the program is not properly implemented.

AB 46 would allow courts to assess whether a defendant poses a substantial risk to others and whether the proposed treatment plan is clinically appropriate.

View hearing March 17

The Senate Public Safety Committee will consider AB 46 on March 17. Members of the public can contact committee members to share their views.

Contact information for committee members is available at https://spsf.senate.ca.gov/committeehome, where the public can also watch the hearing live at 8:30 a.m.