A Pasadena man, previously involved in a shocking incident where his family’s Tesla veered off a cliff in San Mateo, has taken a legal stance to avoid criminal conviction, attributing his actions to his battle with depression.
Dharmesh Patel has filed a motion in San Mateo County Superior Court, advocating for his case’s relocation to the Mental Health Diversion Court. Patel argues that his major depressive disorder warrants specialized attention and diversion from conventional legal proceedings.
The incident occurred earlier this year, when Patel’s Tesla careened off a cliff in San Mateo, with his wife Neha, their 7-year-old daughter, and 4-year-old son aboard. Fortunately, the crash did not result in fatalities, a development initially described as an “absolute miracle.” However, the mood surrounding the incident soured when authorities revealed their suspicions of Patel intentionally driving off the cliff, leading to his subsequent arrest and the filing of three counts of attempted murder against him by the California Highway Patrol.
Patel’s legal representatives are invoking the 2018 Mental Health Diversion Court law as they seek a resolution for his case that diverges from traditional criminal conviction. The law, designed to accommodate offenders grappling with mental health issues, permits the postponement of prosecutions when an individual is mandated to undergo a mental health treatment program by a judge. For misdemeanors, the programs are capped at one year, while felonies are subject to a maximum of two years.
Although certain offenses are exempted from this eligibility, including murder and manslaughter, Patel’s charges of attempted murder fall within the statute’s purview. However, legal experts assert that the gravity of the criminal allegations and the potential for recurrence must be weighed when evaluating Patel’s motion.
Lou Shapiro, a prominent Los Angeles defense attorney, emphasizes that the severity of the case could influence the court’s decision. Shapiro asserts, “When you have a situation like this where the act was very egregious and this could happen again, and people could get very badly hurt, a judge is going to be less likely to want to take that risk and grant diversion.”
As the legal proceedings unfold, Patel’s case underscores the intricate interplay between mental health considerations and legal accountability, raising critical questions about how the justice system navigates such complex scenarios.
