AB 2274 lets California courts postpone prosecution and place defendants into mental‑health treatment programs when the defendant has a qualifying diagnosed mental disorder that significantly contributed to the alleged offense and the court finds the defendant suitable for diversion. The bill defines who counts as a “qualified mental health expert,” codifies a presumption that a qualifying diagnosis was a significant factor in the offense unless rebutted by clear and convincing evidence, and requires a treatment plan, progress reporting, and duration limits on diversion (one year for misdemeanors, two years for felonies).
The measure also draws bright lines: it excludes the most serious sexual and violent crimes (including murder, rape, and offenses requiring sex‑offender registration), allows courts to reinstate proceedings or refer a defendant for conservatorship if treatment fails or new violent conduct occurs, and preserves certain disclosures (notably to peace‑officer applicant inquiries) despite sealing. Prosecutors may seek a court order temporarily prohibiting firearm possession during diversion, but must prove that prohibition is necessary by clear and convincing evidence.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill authorizes courts to grant pretrial diversion for misdemeanor and felony defendants diagnosed with a qualifying mental disorder if the disorder significantly factored into the offense and the defendant is suitable for treatment. It sets diagnostic and evidentiary rules, requires treatment plans and progress reports, limits diversion length, and creates triggers for reinstatement or conservatorship.
Who It Affects
Directly affects defendants with diagnosed mental disorders, defense attorneys who will seek diversion, prosecutors who must litigate eligibility and firearm restrictions, trial courts that will screen and monitor diversion, and county mental‑health agencies and treatment providers who must accept referrals and provide progress reports.
Why It Matters
This shifts some pretrial outcomes from punishment to treatment, changes evidentiary burdens (a presumption that mental disorder was significant), and imposes operational demands on courts and county health systems. It also narrows sealing protections in specific licensing contexts and establishes a judicial pathway for temporary firearm prohibitions tied to diversion.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 2274 creates a statutory route for courts to defer prosecution and place defendants into mental‑health treatment when mental illness substantially contributed to the alleged criminal conduct. To start, the defense must present evidence of a qualifying diagnosis within the past five years from a qualified mental‑health expert; that expert can rely on examinations, medical records, arrest reports, or other relevant materials.
Once a qualifying diagnosis exists, the bill shifts the default: the court must find the mental disorder was a significant factor in the offense unless the prosecution proves otherwise by clear and convincing evidence. This is an evidentiary inversion compared with traditional frameworks and will shape pretrial filings and hearings.
Even with a qualifying diagnosis, diversion is discretionary. The court must assess whether treatment is likely to address the defendant’s symptoms, whether the defendant consents (or is legally incapable of consenting due to incompetence but otherwise eligible), and whether the defendant will comply with treatment or is an appropriate candidate for restoration‑in‑lieu options.
The bill requires the court to weigh public safety by referencing a statutory definition of “unreasonable risk of danger” and allows consideration of the defendant’s criminal and violence history, current charges, and the proposed treatment plan.Operationally, AB 2274 binds the diversion process to existing treatment capacity. The court can refer defendants to private or public programs, collaborative courts, county mental‑health agencies, or assisted outpatient treatment—but only when the receiving entity agrees in writing to accept responsibility.
If a county agency cannot provide services, the agency may submit a written declaration instead of live testimony to avoid delaying placement. Providers must give regular progress reports to the court, defense, and prosecution, and diversion is time‑limited: up to two years for felonies and one year for misdemeanors.
The court must hold a restitution hearing on request, but inability to pay from indigence or mental illness cannot be used to deny diversion.The bill sets limits around eligibility and future use of records. It expressly bars diversion for enumerated serious crimes (murder, specified sexual offenses, and offenses requiring sex‑offender registration, except for indecent exposure) and requires the court to determine ineligibility based on the factual conduct alleged, not merely the formal charges.
If diversion succeeds, the court dismisses the charges and directs restricted access to arrest records under a defined statute, but AB 2274 also preserves two exceptions: the Department of Justice may disclose the arrest to a peace‑officer applicant inquiry, and criminal‑justice agencies retain access consistent with other sealing law. The statute further restricts use of mental‑health findings and progress reports in other proceedings without the defendant’s consent except where constitutional evidentiary standards allow.Finally, the bill builds in supervision and safety mechanisms.
The court must hold a reinstatement hearing if the defendant commits further qualifying offenses or if a qualified expert indicates unsatisfactory treatment performance or grave disability; in appropriate cases the court can refer the defendant to conservatorship investigators. The prosecution may ask the court to prohibit firearm ownership or possession during diversion, but it carries the burden to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant poses a significant danger and that less‑restrictive alternatives are inadequate.
If granted, the prohibition lasts until diversion completion or until rights are restored under existing Welfare & Institutions Code processes.
The Five Things You Need to Know
A qualifying mental disorder must be documented by a qualified expert and include a diagnosis or treatment within the last five years; experts may rely on exams, records, or arrest reports.
If a defendant has a qualifying diagnosis, the court must find the disorder was a significant factor in the offense unless the prosecution rebuts that presumption by clear and convincing evidence.
Diversion terms are time‑limited: up to two years for felony charges and up to one year for misdemeanors, with regular progress reports to court, defense, and prosecution.
Successful completion leads to dismissal and restricted arrest records, but the Department of Justice may still disclose the arrest in response to a peace‑officer applicant request and criminal‑justice agencies retain access consistent with sealing law.
Prosecutors can seek a court order barring firearm ownership during diversion, but must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is a significant danger and that less‑restrictive measures are inadequate.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Court authorization for mental‑health diversion
This provision gives courts discretionary authority to grant pretrial diversion for offenses not listed in the exclusion list, provided eligibility and suitability criteria are met and both sides’ positions are considered. Practically, it integrates diversion into ordinary accusatory‑pleading stages rather than creating a separate statutory program outside the criminal process.
Eligibility: qualifying diagnoses and significant‑factor test
Defines eligibility by two bright‑line requirements: a recent (within five years) qualifying diagnosis or treatment documented by a qualified expert, and that the mental disorder was a significant factor in the alleged offense. The notable procedural effect is the presumption in favor of the defendant once a diagnosis is presented; the prosecution must overcome that presumption with clear and convincing evidence that the disorder did not contribute to the conduct.
Suitability: treatment responsiveness, consent, and safety
Lists four conditions a court must evaluate to find a defendant suitable: expert opinion that symptoms would respond to treatment, consent or statutory exception for incompetence, agreement to comply with treatment (or statutory exception), and determination that the defendant does not pose an unreasonable public‑safety risk if treated in the community. The provision ties suitability to both clinical judgment and courtroom safety assessment.
Offense exclusions and conduct‑based eligibility determination
Enumerates serious offenses ineligible for diversion (murder, many sexual offenses, offenses requiring sex‑offender registration, certain lewd acts) and instructs courts to base ineligibility on the factual conduct alleged—not merely the charges filed. The conduct‑based rule can preclude diversion even when formal charges are narrower.
Definition of diversion, treatment program requirements, and time limits
Creates a working definition: postponement of prosecution to allow mental‑health treatment, conditional on a court finding that the proposed program will meet specialized needs and the receiving entity agreeing to accept responsibility. It allows private or public funding, written declarations from county agencies that cannot provide services, requires periodic progress reports to the court and parties, and caps diversion length at two years for felonies and one year for misdemeanors.
Reinstatement triggers, conservatorship referral, and dismissal after successful completion
Requires a hearing to reinstate proceedings or modify treatment if the defendant commits new violent or felony crimes during diversion, performs unsatisfactorily, or becomes gravely disabled; the statute authorizes referral to conservatorship investigators in specified circumstances. Conversely, satisfactory performance leads to dismissal, DOJ notification of disposition, and an order to restrict access to arrest records subject to explicit exceptions.
Limits on use of diversion and mental‑health records; access for care and monitoring
Prohibits using arrest and diversion records in a way that would deny employment, licenses, or benefits without defendant consent, but preserves narrower statutory exceptions (notably DOJ disclosure to peace‑officer applicant requests and criminal‑justice agency access under Section 851.92). It also allows the county agency, treatment providers, public guardian/conservator, and court to access medical and psychological records during diversion as needed for care and monitoring, to the extent federal law permits.
Temporary firearm prohibition during diversion
Gives prosecutors the ability to request a court order banning firearm ownership or possession during diversion on grounds the defendant is dangerous. The prosecution bears a clear‑and‑convincing burden to show significant danger and necessity because less‑restrictive alternatives are inadequate; if granted, the order remains until diversion completion or until rights are restored under welfare code procedures.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Criminal Justice across all five countries.
Explore Criminal Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Defendants with qualifying mental disorders — gains a clear statutory path to treatment‑focused outcomes, potential dismissal, and restricted public access to arrest records on successful completion.
- Defense attorneys — receive a defined legal framework and evidentiary presumption to argue diversion, plus clearer rules on competency‑based exceptions to consent and waiver requirements.
- Community and clinical treatment providers — will get more consistent judicial referrals and progress‑reporting roles, creating opportunities for reimbursed treatment placements and closer ties with courts.
- Victims — receive an explicit mechanism to seek restitution during diversion and a forum for the court to monitor compliance and modify diversion if the defendant reoffends or fails treatment.
Who Bears the Cost
- County mental‑health agencies and treatment providers — face increased demand to accept referrals, provide services, and prepare regular progress reports; counties may confront unfunded capacity pressures.
- Trial courts and clerks — take on screening, eligibility hearings (including prima facie showings), monitoring compliance, scheduling reinstatement hearings, and processing DOJ notifications and sealing orders.
- Prosecutors — must litigate the presumption that a mental disorder was significant, meet the clear‑and‑convincing standard to rebut it when appropriate, and marshal evidence to justify firearm prohibitions when requested.
- Law enforcement and the Department of Justice — must manage nuanced disclosure obligations (e.g., peace‑officer applicant inquiries) and handle record‑sealing logistics that are limited but administratively complex.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is reconciling a treatment‑centered approach that prioritizes rehabilitation and confidentiality with the state's duty to protect public safety and enforce accountability: the bill lowers barriers to diversion for defendants with mental disorders but leaves courts and underfunded local systems to judge and manage risks, creating trade‑offs between expanded access to treatment and the practical limits of clinical capacity, evidentiary uncertainty, and constrained privacy protections.
AB 2274 advances a treatment‑first approach but relies heavily on existing clinical capacity and local administrative cooperation. The statute permits referrals only when a receiving entity agrees to accept responsibility and contains a mechanism for written declarations where counties cannot provide services, but it does not supply funding or a statewide implementation plan.
That gap means diversion uptake will vary by county and could create unequal access: urban areas with robust community providers will implement the program more readily than underresourced rural counties.
The bill also resets important evidentiary levers. By presuming that a qualifying diagnosis was a significant factor unless rebutted by clear and convincing evidence, AB 2274 effectively shifts the litigation battleground to pretrial hearings.
Prosecutors will need to adapt investigative practice and may face challenges meeting that higher burden in cases where factual records are thin. Conversely, defendants without robust documentation of recent diagnosis could be shut out, creating an incentive for early clinical evaluation but also for tactical diagnostic contests in court.
Finally, the statute’s privacy protections are partial: while it bars many collateral uses of diversion and mental‑health records, it preserves DOJ disclosure for peace‑officer applicant checks and allows certain criminal‑justice access, producing a tension between rehabilitation/privacy goals and public‑safety/licensing scrutiny.
The firearm prohibition provision is another tightrope. Requiring clear and convincing evidence that less‑restrictive alternatives are inadequate protects due‑process interests but raises practical questions: how will courts weigh clinical testimony against the prosecution’s showing that outpatient monitoring or surrender conditions won’t suffice?
And what administrative process will ensure timely restoration of firearm rights after diversion? The conservatorship referral route similarly overlaps with mental‑health civil procedures and could lead to repeated interplay between criminal and civil systems without clear funding or timeline safeguards.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.