California Legal Brief

The Rule of People v. Superior Court (Taylor) is that mental health diversion may not be granted when no evidence supports that the defendant will comply with treatment in the community, even where experts opine the defendant would not pose an unreasonable risk to public safety if treated, under circumstances where the defendant has a documented history of abandoning treatment facilities and refusing prescribed medication.

Appeal from order granting mental health diversion in Superior Court, Los Angeles County.

Petitioner was The People — the prosecution seeking to vacate a trial court's grant of pretrial mental health diversion.

Respondent was The Superior Court of Los Angeles County — the trial court that granted diversion.

Real Party in Interest was Job Uriah Taylor — the defendant charged with attempted murder and assault with deadly weapon who allegedly attacked four individuals with a metal pipe in racially motivated attacks.

The suit sounded in criminal law involving pretrial mental health diversion under Penal Code section 1001.36. No cross-claims were applicable.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were Taylor's alleged violent, racially motivated attacks on four Black individuals in Santa Monica using a metal pipe, resulting in charges of attempted murder and assault with deadly weapon with hate crime enhancements. Taylor had a documented history of mental illness, substance abuse, and repeatedly abandoning treatment facilities within 24 hours and refusing to take prescribed psychiatric medication. Expert Dr. Campbell opined Taylor would not pose unreasonable risk to public safety "if his psychiatric symptoms were controlled with treatment," but provided no opinion on likelihood of treatment compliance.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court granted Taylor's motion for mental health diversion, ruling that mental health professionals could not "predict the future" regarding compliance, without making any express finding that Taylor would not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety if granted diversion.

The key question(s) on Appeal: Whether substantial evidence supported the trial court's implied finding that Taylor would not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety if treated in the community, when no evidence suggested he would comply with treatment and substantial evidence showed a pattern of treatment abandonment and medication noncompliance.

The Appellate Court held that no substantial evidence supported the trial court's implied finding that Taylor was suitable for mental health diversion where experts only opined he would not pose unreasonable risk "if" treated but provided no evidence he would actually comply with treatment, given his documented history of abandoning facilities and refusing medication.

The case is inapplicable when there is evidence the defendant has a history of treatment compliance, or when experts opine not only that the defendant would be safe if treated but also that treatment compliance is likely, or when the treatment facility provides locked or mandatory supervision.

The case leaves open whether diversion may be appropriate in cases with some evidence of prior noncompliance but also some evidence suggesting future compliance would be likely, and what quantum of evidence regarding treatment compliance suffices to support a diversion grant.