People v. Whitmill
SimpleOriginal

Summary

A veteran with PTSD and long-term substance use sought mental health diversion. The trial court denied it, citing public safety risk. The appellate court reversed, finding treatment acceptable and no substantial risk of future danger.

2022 | State Juristiction

People v. Whitmill

Keywords posttraumatic stress; posttraumatic stress disorder; diversion; substance use; vet; reversal
Open Case as PDF

Case Summary

A defendant with a history of post-traumatic stress disorder and chronic substance abuse petitioned the court for mental health diversion. The trial court's denial, predicated on concerns regarding public safety, was overturned on appeal. The appellate court reasoned that the defendant was a suitable candidate for treatment and posed no demonstrable risk of future harm.

Open Case as PDF

Case Summary

A veteran experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and a history of long-term substance use sought admittance to a mental health diversion program as an alternative to traditional criminal justice proceedings. The trial court's rejection of the diversion application stemmed from a determination that the individual posed a significant risk to public safety. However, the appellate court overturned this decision, concluding that participation in a treatment program was appropriate and that there was insufficient evidence to establish a substantial likelihood of future dangerous behavior.

Open Case as PDF

Case Summary

A former soldier with PTSD and a history of drug use tried to get into a mental health treatment program instead of facing criminal charges. The initial court refused, worried the person might be a danger to the public. However, a higher court overturned this decision, saying that treatment was a good option and there wasn't enough evidence to show this person would be a threat to others in the future.

Open Case as PDF

Summary

A former soldier with PTSD and a history of drug use attempted to get into a mental health treatment program instead of facing criminal charges. The first court said no because they thought he was a danger to the public. But a higher court said yes, because they believed he could get better and wasn't a threat.

Open Case as PDF

Footnotes and Citation

Cite

86 Cal.App.5th 1138 (2022)

Highlights