California Legal Brief

The Rule of People v. Tourville is that a trial court abuses its discretion in denying mental health diversion based on general public safety concerns beyond the statutory definition of "unreasonable risk of danger to public safety" (risk of committing a super strike), and cannot require a defendant to plead guilty to obtain the same treatment program that would be available under diversion, under circumstances where the court finds the defendant eligible and suitable for diversion under Penal Code section 1001.36.

Appeal from judgment after no contest plea in Superior Court, Los Angeles County.

Defendant Appellant was Vincent Francis Tourville — a military veteran with PTSD and alcohol use disorder who was charged with corporal injury to spouse after violently attacking the mother of his newborn child.

Plaintiff Respondent was The People — the prosecuting party in the criminal case.

The suit sounded in criminal domestic violence. No cross-claims applicable.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were Tourville came home intoxicated four days after his child's birth, slapped E.C. multiple times leaving injuries under her eyes, threw her to the ground, kicked her in the vagina, and strangled her with one hand while smothering her with the other until she almost lost consciousness. Tourville had a history of domestic violence with another partner and had been diagnosed with PTSD from Iraq military service and alcohol use disorder.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court denied Tourville's motion for mental health diversion under section 1001.36, ruling that despite finding him eligible and suitable for diversion (including finding he did not pose an unreasonable risk of committing a super strike), the violent nature of the crime and his history of violence made the offense unsuitable for diversion, and the court preferred probation supervision over the two-year diversion period. The court offered to place him on probation with the same Veterans Affairs treatment program if he pleaded no contest, which he did.

The key question(s) on Appeal: 1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying mental health diversion based on public safety concerns beyond the statutory definition of "unreasonable risk of danger to public safety" 2. Whether requiring a defendant to plead no contest to obtain the same treatment available under diversion violates the purposes of the mental health diversion statute

The Appellate Court held the trial court abused its discretion by denying diversion based on general public safety concerns despite finding Tourville did not pose an unreasonable risk of committing a super strike, and that requiring him to plead no contest to obtain identical treatment was directly at odds with the statute's purpose to treat individuals with mental disorders in the community instead of entering the criminal justice system.

The case is inapplicable when the defendant actually poses an unreasonable risk of committing a super strike, when there is no suitable treatment program available, when the defendant has a history showing poor prospects for treatment success, or when a different diversion program would better serve the defendant's needs.

The case leaves open what other factors a trial court may properly consider in exercising residual discretion to deny diversion beyond the risk of committing super strikes, the scope of required supervision and reporting during diversion, and how courts should handle cases where defendants leave treatment programs early without notice.