The County District Attorney has come out in support of a bill before the State Legislature designed to get tougher on criminals with mental health disorders.
“District Attorneys and law enforcement professionals,” reads a news release from D.A. Dan Dow, “are urging people across the State of California to immediately contact their elected state assembly member and state senator to fix mental health diversion by passing Assembly Bill 46.”
D.A. Dow, who serves as president of the California District Attorneys Association, said AB 46 is needed to “fix California’s broken mental health diversion law.”
He added that AB 46 closes “dangerous loopholes” in the law “by restoring judges’ discretion to deny diversion to violent and high-risk offenders while still ensuring meaningful treatment for those who truly suffer from mental illness.”
According to the website, calmatters,org (see: https://bit.ly/4uP3hoD) “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 for the defendant to undergo mental health treatment.”
Current law says 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.”
In other words, to get mental health diversion one must show that whatever crime they committed was because they are mentally ill. If a judge finds that mental illness wasn’t the reason that they did whatever they are accused of, the judge can deny diversion. But a person could still plead insanity. And, current law makes diversion unavailable for certain crimes, like murder.
AB 46 gives judges discretion in deciding whether a defendant can get diversion.
This bill, Cal Matters said, would, if the defendant has been diagnosed with a mental disorder within five years of the current offense, as specified, require the court to find that the defendants mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the offense.
As it is now, a defendant is suitable for diversion if a qualified mental health expert says that the defendant would respond to treatment “and the defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety if treated in the community.”
AB 46 gives a judge the discretion to deny diversion, “even if a defendant is otherwise suitable for diversion.”
The law requires a finding that “it is more likely than not that the defendant will pose an unreasonable risk to the physical safety of another person.”
AB 46 “would require the mental health experts’ opinion to include that the proposed mental health diversion plan is clinically appropriate to address the symptoms of the defendant’s mental disorder.”
It would also require a judge to put in writing why a defendant is not allowed diversion.
D.A. Dow said, “Victims of violent crime in California deserve to be protected by our laws, not placed in greater danger because those laws are written in a way that forces judges to release dangerous offenders back into our neighborhoods.”
He said current law ties the hands of judges and “strips them of common-sense discretion and allows individuals who commit serious and violent crimes — including domestic violence, home invasions and assaults — to avoid accountability and reoffend. We must fix this law before another victim pays the ultimate price.”
According to Dow, when an offender successfully goes through the diversion program, “the crime is removed from their record. Erasing accountability and endangering victims, law enforcement, and the public if the person reoffends.”
Dow added, “Diversion should be a carefully monitored path to treatment, not a loophole that gives dangerous offenders a free pass and leaves victims feeling abandoned by the system that promised to protect them.”
Dow listed several examples of diversion gone wrong including one out of Santa Clara County wherein “a woman carjacked an elderly man, dragging him alongside the car; then rammed that same vehicle into her boyfriend when they argued; and then 10 minutes later rammed the vehicle twice into one victim as he was eating at a restaurant outside, killing him. She was on mental health diversion for carjacking at the time.”
And in Butte County, he said, “a defendant was on active mental health diversion for felony assault on a police officer when he shot his neighbor to death. His neighbor’s body was found riddled with bullets in the middle of the street in front of the defendant’s residence.
“The defendant fled and later was found with a ghost gun in his possession. Behavioral Health had reported the defendant was compliant with medication and had been doing ‘excellent’ on his program.” His roommate had a different story to tell.
“Defendant’s roommate when interviewed indicated that in fact the defendant had been acting oddly for weeks and had been off his medications for an extended time. He has since been committed to the state hospital as a ‘Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity’ disposition.”
Dow asked everyone to contact their State Senator and State Assembly person and urge them to vote “Yes” on AB 46.
Readers can contact the local representatives, Dawn Addis in the Assembly (see: https://addis.asmdc.org) and Sen. John Laird in the State Senate (see: https://sd17.senate.ca.gov).
The bill has had a long and circuitous route through the Legislature having first been introduced in December 2024, according to the bill’s history posted on the Legislature’s website.
It’s been in and out of committee several times, amended several times and as of March 3, 2026, it was being re-referred to the Senate Committee on Public Safety.
Assemblywoman Stephanie Nguyen (D — Elk Grove) is the bill’s author. On her website, Assemblywoman Nguyen said, “Public safety must be the foundation of every diversion decision. AB 46 gives judges clearer authority to deny diversion when a defendant poses a serious risk. Diversion remains available where appropriate, but protecting victims and our communities must come first.”
Local Assemblywoman Addis voted for the bill back in May 2025 on its third reading on the Assembly floor.
Estero Bay News sent inquiries to both Addis and Laird asking their positions on AB 46 but did not receive a response before deadline.
Addis’ team responded with, “Yes, Asm. Addis voted for the bill previously. If the bill passes the Senate and comes back to the Assembly for a final vote, she will consider the newest amendments at that time.”
Sen. Laird had not responded before deadline.
