Summary#
S-10706 would amend New York’s Criminal Procedure Law and Judiciary Law and repeal parts of the existing judicial-diversion eligibility rules. It would broaden who may qualify for court-supervised treatment, change how diversion cases are handled, and require a diversion court part in every county. Its stated goal is to provide judicial diversion for people with qualifying mental health diagnoses; that goal is not a guaranteed result. The bill was introduced and referred to the Senate Rules Committee, so it is not law. The parent laws were not supplied, so I could not verify the full current rules against them.
- A person charged with any offense could qualify if they have a qualifying diagnosis. The bill excludes most Class A felonies and Class B felonies under the Penal Law’s sex-offense article, but lets a court make an exception with the prosecutor’s consent.
- The Chief Administrator of the Courts must establish a diversion part in each county. Judges and staff must receive annual specialized training.
- Courts must consider treatment-related findings before deciding whether to offer diversion. A qualifying diagnosis alone does not guarantee admission.
- The bill changes plea and case outcomes: a guilty plea generally would not be required, with exceptions for certain violent felonies and some other cases. Successful participants who did not plead guilty would have their case dismissed and sealed; successful participants who did plead guilty would receive the agreed disposition, and could not receive jail or prison.
- Courts would have to publish annual county-level reports on applications, admissions, outcomes, diagnoses, charges, providers, evaluation wait times, and denials due to unavailable treatment.
What it means for you#
- People charged with crimes: If you have a qualifying diagnosis, you could ask for a clinical evaluation after arraignment and before a guilty plea or trial. If you choose to pursue diversion, the court and prosecutor would receive the evaluation, with your consent to share protected health information. The bill does not make admission automatic.
- People in diversion: Treatment plans could include counseling, medication, and harm-reduction services. Courts could set program conditions, but the bill limits searches, curfews, location restrictions, and limits on family and peer relationships by the treatment team. Police supervision is barred unless the court finds no alternative local provider.
- Participants facing a claimed violation: Before incarceration or removal from diversion, the court must hold a hearing; the prosecution must prove an important violation or willful failure to appear by clear and convincing evidence. A participant who makes a good-faith effort may receive a limited sentence if removed after pleading guilty.
- Courts and court staff: They would have to establish and staff county diversion parts, provide training, and report program data. The bill does not directly change taxes or create a new independent agency.
Money#
No publicly available information on the bill’s cost.
- The bill requires county diversion parts, annual training, and annual reporting, but gives no staffing numbers, funding source, or cost estimate.
- It does not set a new fee or fine for participants.
What is unclear#
- The bill does not set a start date in the supplied text.
- It does not explain how courts would decide whether a diagnosis qualifies in difficult cases, or how much evidence a defendant may need to show before getting an evaluation.
- The bill does not guarantee that treatment providers will be available. It does not say how unmet demand would be funded or addressed.
- The bill lists broad diagnostic categories but does not specify how courts should assess whether treatment can effectively address a person’s diagnosis.
- The supplied text does not show how the new diversion parts would interact with existing local treatment courts and programs.
Case for#
- The bill appears intended to let courts consider diversion for people whose mental health or substance use needs may be connected to their involvement in the criminal legal system.
- A possible argument for the broader eligibility rule is that it would let courts consider a person’s diagnosis and treatment needs across a wider range of charges.
- The bill’s limits on guilty pleas, incarceration after successful completion, and certain supervision practices could reduce the legal and practical burdens of taking part.
- County-level reporting could make differences in access, waiting times, and outcomes more visible.
Case against#
- One concern is that eligibility could expand faster than treatment capacity. The bill requires courts to consider whether existing providers can treat someone, but does not provide funding or require new treatment services.
- The bill would require new court parts, training, and reports without stating their cost or how many staff they need.
- Access would still depend on court findings, and some people outside the listed eligibility categories would need the prosecutor’s consent to qualify.
- The required reports include diagnosis and case details by county. Although they must not include personal identifying information, the bill does not explain how reporting will protect privacy in small groups.