California Legal Brief

The Rule of Flareau is that a trial court abuses its residual discretion when denying mental health diversion based on finding that other factors were "more" motivating than the defendant's mental disorder, under circumstances where the defendant is eligible for diversion and the mental disorder was at least a contributing factor to the offense.

Appeal from order denying motion for mental health diversion in Superior Court, Riverside County.

Petitioner was Adam Flareau — the defendant charged with felony offenses arising from an altercation with his sister who sought pretrial mental health diversion.

Respondent was The Superior Court of Riverside County, with Real Party in Interest The People — the prosecution opposing Flareau's request for mental health diversion.

The suit sounded in criminal law, specifically a petition for writ of mandate to compel reconsideration of a motion for pretrial mental health diversion under Penal Code section 1001.36.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were Flareau got into an altercation with his sister Mikaylah after she threatened to "out" him to their conservative parents, during which he threatened to shoot her, pointed a gun at her, slapped her, and chased her with a taser while demanding she leave the house. Flareau had been diagnosed with multiple mental disorders and was receiving psychiatric medication treatment but had never received psychotherapy. Two mental health experts opined that his mental disorders contributed to the incident and that he would benefit from psychotherapy.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court denied Flareau's motion for mental health diversion under its residual discretion, ruling that while there was a nexus between Flareau's conduct and his mental health diagnoses, there was "clear and convincing evidence" that the incident had "more to do with his sister antagonizing him with threats to out him" and that he did not fall within the "spirit" of section 1001.36 because he was already receiving mental health treatment and had no prior criminal history.

The key question(s) on Appeal: Whether the trial court abused its residual discretion in denying mental health diversion based on finding that other factors were more significant motivating factors than the defendant's mental disorder.

The Appellate Court held that the trial court abused its residual discretion by denying diversion primarily because it found Flareau's behavior had "more to do with" his sister's threats, where nothing in section 1001.36 suggests a qualifying defendant can be denied diversion if something else was more of a motivating factor than their mental disorder.

The case is inapplicable when the defendant's mental disorder was not a motivating, causal, or contributing factor to the offense, or when the defendant is found ineligible or unsuitable for diversion based on the statutory criteria.

The case leaves open what specific circumstances would justify a trial court's proper exercise of residual discretion to deny mental health diversion when a defendant is both eligible and suitable.