A bill to strengthen California’s laws on mental health diversion — a process that allows certain criminal defendants to avoid jail time for arrests related to mental illness — is now set to be signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom.
Assembly Bill 46, authored by Stephanie Nguyen (D-Elk Grove), gives judges broad discretion in deciding whether a defendant should be convicted. Under current law, judges must assume that mental illness was a factor if a defendant with a formal diagnosis seeks diversion. In order to win a diversion plea, the burden is on prosecutors to prove that mental health problems were not a factor in the alleged crime.
The new measure — which passed the state Senate without opposition last month and is expected to clear a reconciliation process in the House this week — also gives judges more leeway to block diversion if a defendant poses a “danger to public safety,” as opposed to the higher standard of “unreasonable danger” passed in 2018.
Proponents of inclusive policies argue that too many people with mental health problems are locked up in California’s jails and prisons, where they can’t get the help they need.
Supporters of the pending bill say its changes are designed to deal with cases like that of Gilberto Guttierrez, a Los Angeles County man accused of assaulting his wife four times over the past 12 years.
In 2014, allegations of domestic violence put Guttierrez on probation. Three years later, Guttierrez was ordered to take anger management classes after prosecutors brought domestic violence charges against him. Last February, prosecutors said, he attacked his wife “brutally with a glass bottle”, leaving her “severely injured,” according to the plea filed in his criminal case. At that time, court documents show, Guttierrez threatened to kill her.
Despite objections from prosecutors and LA County officials, a judge granted Guttierrez’s request for a mental health break last July.
A month later, prosecutors say he beat his wife until she passed out.
When it passed in 2018, the first mental health diversion law was announced as a necessary way to avoid defendants suffering from serious mental problems – to provide treatment to those who need it instead of a prison cell. But as voters across the country clamor for continued criminal justice reform, lawmakers want to make it harder for defendants to qualify.
“AB 46 preserves the sport as an important form of care while ensuring that judges have a clear and effective standard when there is a serious concern for public safety,” Nguyen said in a statement last month.
Under existing laws, defendants who successfully oppose mental health diversion before trial spend two years in a court-appointed treatment program instead of facing sentencing. Prosecutors must prove that the defendant is likely to have committed a more violent crime, called a “major strike,” and to prevent diversion.
County of Los Angeles County. He said. Nathan Hochman, one of many prosecutors across the country who supported Nguyen’s bill, said that was an almost impossible standard to beat.
“Guttierrez is your example: Judge, if you release him, he will probably beat his wife again, and if he does this time, he can kill her. But by the grace of God, he hasn’t killed her yet,” said Hochman.
He added that because of the judge’s decision to divert Guttierrez’s case, “he has three young children who may not have their mother for the rest of their lives.”
A spokesman for Newsom did not respond to a request for comment on his legal plans.
A 2020 Rand Corporation study found that 61% of the nearly 5,500 mentally ill inmates held in Los Angeles County at the time were “probably eligible” for intervention.
But a number of troubling incidents have led people to roll back the current diversionary law.
In a letter supporting Nguyen’s bill, the California District Attorneys Assn. complicated the list of charges in which prosecutors say the law’s shortcomings had deadly consequences. They pointed to a case in Sacramento where the defendant stabbed and killed a 40-year-old man after he was given a diversion from a robbery case. In Santa Clara, the book says, a woman who was mentally disturbed by a carjacking went on to steal another car and crashed it into a table outside a restaurant, killing one person and injuring others.
Nikhil Ramnaney, a former federal prosecutor who now works as a defense attorney in Southern California, said that thousands of people benefit from mental health interventions every year without offending and chastised supporters of the bill by cherry-picking bad – but unusual – cases to gain support for their proposal.
“This is their most effective strategy because it works. Take the most serious anecdotes and repeat and amplify them as much as possible,” he said. “That’s how we get bad policy.”
Defense attorney Alexandra Kazarian said California politicians are repeating old mistakes of trying to block their way out of the mental health crisis.
“Without this option, you throw them in jail for a few years, they get out, and nothing has changed. I’ve seen a real change in my clients who have been given these things and have just been in a horrible break from mental illness, and after two years, they are living together fully,” she said. “You will always be able to find an outsider. You will always be able to find someone who destroys a good project or plan.”
Hochman said the reformed mental health diversion law “rebalances” the balance in California after years of efforts to reduce the state’s prison population have affected public safety.
“In the end, I’m not looking for pendulum swings,” he said. “I think we had a pendulum swing when these laws were passed and people weren’t really discussing, or at least understanding, the public safety impact of laws that seem to be so big — I won’t even use the word ‘progress,’ but they’re very helpful to people who are suffering.”
