SB 1373 authorizes California courts to grant pretrial diversion for defendants whose qualifying mental disorder substantially contributed to the charged offense, subject to eligibility, suitability, and public‑safety screening. The bill defines diagnosis standards, limits diversion for specified serious crimes and repeat felons, and prescribes treatment, reporting, and record‑sealing rules.
This creates a statutory path to postpone or dismiss prosecutions in favor of mental‑health treatment while preserving mechanisms to reinstate charges, pursue conservatorship, or restrict firearms when necessary. For practitioners, the bill changes screening thresholds, allocates new responsibilities to courts, counties, prosecutors, and treatment providers, and raises practical questions about capacity, confidentiality, and who bears program costs.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill lets a court divert misdemeanor or felony defendants into court‑supervised mental‑health treatment when a qualified expert shows a recent diagnosis and the disorder was a significant factor in the offense. It prescribes treatment reporting, maximum diversion periods (one year for misdemeanors, two years for felonies), exclusions for serious offenses, and triggers for reinstating proceedings or conservatorship.
Who It Affects
Directly affects defendants with recent diagnoses of major mental disorders (excluding antisocial personality disorder and pedophilia), superior and trial courts, county mental‑health agencies and treatment providers, prosecutors required to litigate firearm‑restriction requests, and defense counsel advising clients about diversion and record consequences.
Why It Matters
SB 1373 standardizes pretrial mental‑health diversion across jurisdictions in California and embeds procedural guardrails—diagnosis timelines, reporting obligations, and reinstatement triggers—that will determine how courts balance rehabilitation against public safety and resource limits.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 1373 lets judges postpone prosecution and place defendants into supervised mental‑health treatment when two core conditions are met: a qualified mental‑health expert shows the defendant was diagnosed with a qualifying disorder within the last five years (or has treatment evidence within that timeframe), and the disorder was a significant factor in the charged conduct. The defense must present the diagnostic evidence; the court evaluates suitability after hearing from defense, prosecution, and experts.
The statute explicitly excludes antisocial personality disorder and pedophilia from qualifying diagnoses.
The bill requires courts to evaluate whether treatment can address the symptoms driving criminal behavior, whether the defendant consents (or cannot consent due to incompetence under specified competency restoration pathways), and whether community treatment would pose an unreasonable risk to public safety. If diverted, defendants enter court‑supervised treatment programs—public or private—with providers reporting progress to court, defense, and prosecution.
Time limits cap diversion at two years for felonies and one year for misdemeanors, and courts can order restitution during diversion though inability to pay due to indigence or mental disorder cannot be a barrier to participation.SB 1373 sets a list of categorical exclusions: homicide, most sexual offenses, child abuse, kidnapping, human trafficking, crimes causing great bodily injury, and several others. It also bars diversion for defendants with two or more prior felonies or a prior strike.
During diversion, courts must monitor conduct; new violent or felony charges, poor treatment performance, or a finding of grave disability can trigger hearings to reinstate prosecution, modify treatment, or refer the person to conservatorship proceedings.The bill includes confidentiality and record limits: successful completion leads to dismissal and restricted access to arrest records (with specified exceptions), and most treatment records cannot be used in other proceedings without consent except where constitutional standards for admissibility are met. Separately, the prosecution can seek a court order prohibiting firearm possession during diversion but must prove that the person poses a significant danger by clear and convincing evidence and that less restrictive alternatives are inadequate.
The Five Things You Need to Know
A qualifying diagnosis or treatment within five years is required and must be supported by a qualified mental‑health expert; antisocial personality disorder and pedophilia are excluded.
Diversion periods are capped: no more than two years for felony charges and no more than one year for misdemeanors.
The statute lists categorical exclusions (e.g.
murder, most sex crimes, kidnapping, human trafficking, crimes causing great bodily injury) and disqualifies defendants with two or more prior felonies or a prior strike.
The prosecution may seek a temporary court order banning firearm possession during diversion, but must prove danger and necessity by clear and convincing evidence; any granted order lasts until diversion completion or restoration of rights under Welfare & Institutions Code 8103.
Courts may reinstate charges or refer a defendant for conservatorship if the defendant commits additional violent/felony offenses during diversion, performs unsatisfactorily in treatment, or is found gravely disabled by a qualified expert.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Court discretion to grant mental‑health pretrial diversion
Subsection (a) authorizes courts to grant diversion on charged misdemeanors or felonies not excluded by the statute, but only after weighing defense and prosecution positions and confirming eligibility and suitability under the statutory tests. Practically, this places gatekeeping power with judges and requires them to perform a fact‑intensive suitability determination rather than an automatic diversion referral.
Eligibility: diagnosis and causal nexus
Subdivision (b) sets the evidentiary floor: the defense must present proof of a qualifying DSM diagnosis or recent treatment within five years, produced by a 'qualified mental health expert,' and show the disorder was a significant factor in the offense. The bill creates a rebuttable presumption that a qualifying recent diagnosis counts as a significant factor unless the court finds otherwise by clear and convincing evidence, shifting the practical burden in many cases toward allowing diversion absent strong contrary proof.
Suitability criteria and public‑safety screening
Subdivision (c) requires courts to assess whether symptoms would likely respond to treatment, obtain the defendant’s consent (unless incompetence precludes it under specified competency‑restoration pathways), and determine that community treatment would not create an unreasonable public‑safety risk. The court may consider prior diversion behavior, violence history, treatment plans, and expert opinions—giving judges latitude but also requiring them to balance individualized rehabilitation prospects against community risk.
Categorical exclusions, prior convictions, and prima facie hearings
Subdivision (d) enumerates offenses that disqualify a defendant from diversion—principally violent and serious sexual crimes—and bars defendants with two or more prior felonies or a strike. Subdivision (e) allows the court to hold an informal prima facie hearing at any stage to require the defendant to show eligibility and suitability, permitting offers of proof and reliable hearsay and giving courts a tool to screen baseless diversion requests early.
Program structure, reporting, and time limits
The definitions section clarifies 'pretrial diversion' and prescribes practical rules: courts must be satisfied treatment meets specialized needs; counties or providers must agree to accept responsibility before referral; providers must report progress to court, defense, and prosecution; diversion is time‑limited (two years for felonies, one year for misdemeanors); and courts can order restitution during diversion while guarding against denying diversion for inability to pay.
Reinstatement, conservatorship referral, and dismissal on completion
Subdivision (g) sets mandatory hearing triggers for reinstating prosecution or initiating conservatorship—new violent or felony charges during diversion, evidence of unsatisfactory performance, or grave disability. Subdivision (h) requires dismissal upon satisfactory completion, instructs the clerk to report dispositions to the Department of Justice, and provides for restricted access to arrest records after dismissal, subject to enumerated exceptions.
Record use, access to records, and firearm prohibition
The bill restricts use of mental‑health findings and treatment records in separate proceedings without consent, except where admissibility standards are met, and grants certain agencies access to records during diversion for treatment and monitoring. It also gives prosecutors a statutory route to seek temporary firearm prohibitions during diversion, but imposes a clear‑and‑convincing evidentiary standard and requires the court to consider less restrictive alternatives.
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: Offers a pathway to treatment and potential dismissal of charges upon satisfactory completion, reducing exposure to incarceration for eligible individuals.
- Defense counsel and public defenders: Gains a clear statutory mechanism and evidentiary framework for seeking diversion and emphasizing treatment over prosecution.
- Victims in some cases: Can obtain restitution during diversion through a court hearing, creating a route to compensation even when prosecution is postponed.
- County mental‑health programs and existing collaborative courts: Will receive referrals and potentially expand the scope of community treatment services and integrated court‑based programs.
Who Bears the Cost
- County mental‑health agencies: Must accept referrals or provide written declarations of inability, coordinate treatment, and handle reporting obligations—tasks that will consume staffing and treatment resources.
- Courts and judicial officers: Face increased case management, prima facie and reinstatement hearings, and oversight duties for treatment compliance within statutory time caps.
- Prosecutors: Must litigate suitability disputes, bear the burden in firearm‑restriction hearings (clear and convincing evidence), and monitor diversion participants for triggers to reinstate charges.
- Treatment providers: Required to produce regular progress reports and share clinical information with courts and parties, raising administrative burdens and potential confidentiality questions.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits two legitimate goals against each other: expanding access to community‑based treatment and dismissal for defendants whose criminal acts stem from mental disorders, versus protecting public safety and victims’ interests through exclusions, close judicial oversight, and firearm restrictions—while relying on uneven local treatment capacity and discretionary judicial standards that will determine which interest prevails in practice.
SB 1373 constructs a diversion framework that depends heavily on local mental‑health capacity and on judicial discretion. The statute allows courts to refer defendants to county agencies, private providers, collaborative courts, or assisted outpatient treatment, but ties referrals to provider agreement and resource availability; where services are scarce, defendants in identical circumstances could receive very different outcomes depending on local capacity.
The law attempts to avoid denying diversion because of indigence (notably on restitution), but it does not allocate funding, leaving counties and providers to absorb costs or restrict intake.
Several evaluative standards in the bill are fact‑intensive and elastic: 'significant factor' in the offense, 'unreasonable risk of danger' if treated in the community, and what constitutes satisfactory performance in treatment. These standards give judges latitude but also create predictability problems for counsel and clients.
Confidentiality protections are robust but qualified—Department of Justice disclosure rules for peace‑officer applications and criminal‑justice access to sealed arrest information are carved out—producing a tension between a defendant’s rehabilitative privacy and public‑safety information needs. Finally, the bill links diversion to conservatorship and firearm restrictions, raising complex interactions with competency restoration statutes (Section 1370 et seq.) and Welfare & Institutions Code procedures for restoring firearm rights.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.