SB 17 would expand misdemeanor eligibility for therapeutic courts and allow provisional referrals; witnesses say it can reduce recidivism

The Assembly Judiciary Committee considered Senate Bill 17, which makes targeted changes to statutes governing specialty (therapeutic) courts and expands eligibility pathways for misdemeanor defendants to access diversion programs.

Kendra Bertschy, a justice of the peace in Reno Justice Court, told the committee Nevada has “approximately 64 therapeutic courts” across the state and described the courts’ use of evidence-based treatment, intensive supervision, and collaboration among stakeholders to reduce recidivism and redirect resources to more serious cases. “These courts range from focusing on mental health, substance use, veterans issues, developmental disabilities, women in need, youthful offenders,” Bertschy said, and added that the bill’s changes are intended to allow more individuals accused of misdemeanors to request pre-prosecution diversion without altering eligibility for felonies or gross misdemeanors.

John McCormick, assistant court administrator at the Administrative Office of the Courts, said the bill expands the program while explicitly excluding certain offenses (he listed domestic battery, stalking, harassment, coercion, violation of protection orders and other offenses identified with stakeholder concern). He also described a provision in section 3 that would allow courts to make provisional referrals to obtain assessments so defendants can receive appropriate evaluations and be placed in the correct specialty program. “Currently, that’s a gap because we have a person who may need to go to specialty court or may be appropriate for that program, but there's no mechanism to get them the appropriate evaluation,” McCormick said.

Stakeholders including the Clark County Public Defender’s Office supported the expansion in testimony. Harrison Epstein, a legal extern with the Clark County Public Defender’s Office, said pre-prosecution diversion programs “are smart on crime, evidence driven approaches that reduce recidivism and help people break the cycle of incarceration.” He told the committee the original bill was broader and his office preferred the wider eligibility but supported the current improvement.

Assembly members asked about the change in the list of excluded offenses between drafts and whether recidivism data informed the list. McCormick said the list of exclusions grew after discussions with district attorneys and other stakeholders who identified “red line” offenses they believed were inappropriate for diversion; he said those discussions focused on offense seriousness rather than recidivism rates. The committee did not vote on SB 17 at this hearing. McCormick said the Administrative Office of the Courts is working to update specialty court funding guidelines to require counties to engage funding bodies before starting new programs.

No final action was taken; sponsors and staff said they would continue stakeholder engagement and statutory refinement.