A New Court Decision Opens the Door to Mental Health Diversion in Serious Felony Cases

The California Court of Appeal recently issued what may become one of the most important Mental Health Diversion decisions since the statute was enacted in 2018. In People v. Tourville (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 439, the court held that a trial judge may not deny Mental Health Diversion simply because the charged crime is particularly violent or disturbing if the defendant otherwise satisfies the statutory requirements for diversion. For defendants charged with serious or violent felonies involving mental illness, the decision could have a profound impact.

What Is Mental Health Diversion?

Mental Health Diversion, created by Penal Code section 1001.36, allows certain criminal defendants whose mental illness significantly contributed to the commission of an offense to receive treatment before their criminal case proceeds to trial or sentencing. If the defendant successfully completes diversion, the criminal charges are dismissed.

Diversion is not available simply because a person has a mental health diagnosis. Before diversion may be granted, the court must find that the defendant suffers from a qualifying mental disorder, that the disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the offense, that appropriate treatment is available, that the defendant consents to diversion and agrees to treatment, and that the defendant satisfies the statute's public safety requirements. Some offenses are specifically excluded by statute, but many serious felonies -- including attempted murder and conspiracy to commit murder -- are not.

Over the past several years, California appellate courts have steadily clarified how trial courts should apply these statutory requirements. Tourville is the latest and perhaps most significant decision in that evolving body of law.

Mental Health Diversion Was Never Limited to Minor Crimes

When Penal Code section 1001.36 was enacted, many lawyers and judges viewed Mental Health Diversion as a program primarily intended for less serious offenses. Although the statute specifically excluded certain crimes from eligibility, it did not exclude many serious and violent felonies, including attempted murder or conspiracy to commit murder.

Even so, many trial courts remained reluctant to grant diversion in particularly serious cases. Faced with disturbing facts, judges often focused on the severity of the alleged offense and questioned whether diversion was appropriate, despite the defendant otherwise satisfying the statutory requirements.

Over time, however, the appellate courts made clear that the Legislature -- not the judiciary -- decides which offenses are eligible for diversion. The courts' role is to apply the statutory framework enacted by the Legislature, not to create additional exclusions based solely upon the seriousness of the crime.

Why Tourville Matters

The facts of Tourville were exceptionally disturbing. The defendant brutally assaulted the mother of his four-day-old infant, repeatedly striking her, kicking her in the vulva, and nearly strangling her into unconsciousness. Few cases present facts more likely to lead a trial court to conclude that diversion should be denied.

The trial court found that the defendant suffered from qualifying mental disorders, that those disorders significantly contributed to the offenses, that he was an appropriate candidate for treatment, and that he did not pose the statutory public safety risk required by the diversion statute. Nevertheless, the court denied diversion because of the extraordinary violence of the offense.

The Court of Appeal reversed and explained that while trial judges retain broad discretion in deciding Mental Health Diversion motions, that discretion must remain within the framework established by the Legislature. Once the statutory requirements have been satisfied, a court may not effectively create an additional requirement based solely upon the seriousness of the charged offense.

The decision does not mean that diversion must be granted whenever a defendant suffers from mental illness. Trial courts continue to evaluate expert evaluations and testimony, competing evidence, treatment plans, and public safety. Rather, Tourville confirms that the Legislature has already determined which offenses are eligible for diversion and that courts must evaluate those cases under the statute as written.

A Short but Important Window

The timing of Tourville makes the decision especially significant. Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed Assembly Bill 46, substantially amending California's Mental Health Diversion statute. Those amendments become effective on January 1, 2027.

Among the most important changes is the replacement of the current "super strike" public safety standard with a broader requirement that the court determine whether the defendant "will not pose a substantial and undue risk to the physical safety of another person." Whether that new language expands judicial discretion remains to be seen, but it will almost certainly become the focus of future appellate decisions.

For defendants charged with serious -- but still statutorily eligible -- felonies, there is now a relatively brief period during which Mental Health Diversion motions continue to be governed by the existing statute and the recent appellate decisions interpreting it, including Tourville. Cases involving attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and other serious offenses not excluded under current law may be evaluated under the existing statutory framework before the amendments take effect.

California's Mental Health Diversion law continues to evolve. Tourville represents the culmination of nearly six years of appellate decisions interpreting the original statute. Beginning in 2027, the amended law will almost certainly begin a new chapter in that development. Until then, Tourville serves as an important reminder that courts must apply the diversion statute enacted by the Legislature, even when the underlying facts are exceptionally serious.