AB 46 would adjust judicial discretion in mental‑health diversion; supporters and defenders disagree on public‑safety tradeoffs

Assemblymember presented AB 46 to clarify judicial discretion in mental‑health diversion cases so judges can weigh public safety, victim impact and a defendant’s history along with clinical criteria when deciding whether to grant diversion. The author and many law enforcement and prosecutorial witnesses said the bill does not remove access to treatment but instead restores judicial balancing after courts have applied statutory criteria in ways they said sometimes led to overbroad diversion.

Sacramento District Attorney and other supporters argued the bill preserves the ability of judges to consider public‑safety risks and that retaining discretion would allow courts to tailor decisions in individual cases. Several law‑enforcement associations and victims’ family members — including a survivor who described being attacked and later seeing the defendant receive diversion — urged the change to prevent tragedies they said followed diversion in specific cases.

Opponents included the California Public Defenders Association, ACLU California Action, and mental‑health diversion advocates. Los Angeles public defender and others said diversion programs have produced markedly lower recidivism rates than state prison and jail outcomes and argued that restricting access would reduce treatment participation that prevents future crimes. A public defender from Los Angeles presented local recidivism data (about 9% for those completing diversion versus around 42% for state prison commitments) and described examples where diversion led to substantial rehabilitative outcomes.

Retired appellate Justice Anthony Klein and other legal experts testified about historical concerns over risk prediction and urged caution about substituting risk assessments for treatment access. Committee members debated the bill’s amendments, including changes to burden of proof and a presumption language added the morning of the hearing. The author said she would continue negotiations and seek consensus with opponents; committee members expressed a mix of support and calls for additional data and safeguards.

The committee subsequently passed AB 46 to appropriations; the committee rollcall later recorded a 4–0 (or 4–? recorded at different times) committee vote in favor to move the bill forward (final committee rollcall recorded the measure as passed). Ending: Debate centered on preserving access to treatment while ensuring courts can consider public safety and victims’ interests; the author pledged to continue negotiating amendments and to refine the bill’s burden and presumption language.