Committee hears bill to expand misdemeanor diversion, allow judges to dismiss charges after substantial compliance

The Law & Justice Committee on March 24 heard public testimony on Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1113, a bill authorizing courts to dismiss certain misdemeanor and gross-misdemeanor charges if a defendant substantially complies with court-ordered terms, conditions or programs by the end of a continuance period.

Representative Daria Farvar, state representative from the 46th Legislative District and sponsor of the bill, said the measure is intended to expand diversion options “especially for folks with behavioral health disabilities or are in behavioral health crisis.” She described the proposal as a way to “establish some meaningful accountability for individuals that allows them to address their challenges head on, be it through treatment or other services and support, rather than going through incarceration.”

Staff counsel Ryan Giannini summarized the bill to the committee, describing pre-filing diversion options and the bill’s mechanics: a defendant must waive the right to a speedy trial, comply with court-ordered terms and programs, and pay restitution where required. If a prosecutor alleges a defendant is not substantially complying, the court would provide written notice and hold a hearing; if the court finds noncompliance by a preponderance of the evidence, it may continue the hearing or end the continuance and set a new date. The continuance may run for a minimum of six months and a maximum of 12 months, according to staff briefing.

Supporters who testified said the bill would get people into treatment earlier and reduce cycling through the criminal legal system. Judge Damon Shadid of Seattle Municipal Court said removing the need to waive trial rights “allows you to, on the first day of court, day 1, send a defendant to the treatment that they desperately need to exit the criminal legal system.” Brandy McNeil, deputy director at Purpose Dignity Action, urged the committee to ensure judges could refer defendants into LEAD-aligned resources (Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion and recovery navigator programs) so courts do not order services that defendants cannot complete due to capacity or funding constraints.

Opponents argued the bill undermines prosecutorial authority and separation of powers. Mayor Jim Ferrell, a former King County deputy prosecutor, said the bill “effectively removes prosecutors’ ability to determine whether diversion is appropriate,” and warned it would sideline elected prosecutors who make charging decisions. James McMahon of the Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs and Russell Brown of the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys expressed similar concerns, and Brown warned the bill would alter restitution practices and broaden immunity and “substantial compliance” standards in ways that could undermine victims’ interests.

Committee members and witnesses pressed on several implementation questions: availability of treatment services across counties, how courts would determine substantial compliance, and whether the bill’s provisions could be applied to people who are or may become members of the Trueblood class (a group of competency restoration cases referenced repeatedly by witnesses). Representative Farvar and witnesses said recovery navigator and trueblood diversion programs operate in roughly 18 counties but acknowledged statewide capacity gaps; sponsors said proposed committee substitute language would require consideration of capacity before diversion is approved.

Public testimony was mixed: nonprofit legal services, public defenders, public-health and recovery organizations, firefighters and people with lived experience backed the bill as a tool to connect defendants to services and reduce recidivism. Several municipal leaders, prosecutors’ associations and law-enforcement groups opposed it, citing separation-of-powers concerns and potential effects on victims and restitution.

The committee concluded the public hearing without a vote. For those who signed in but did not testify, the clerk reported 217 pro, 289 con, and 1 other.

The bill will next proceed through the committee process; sponsors said they planned to circulate a proposed substitute that adds capacity and implementation clarifications.