Dharmesh Patel, who deliberately drove his Tesla off a cliff with his family inside, has been granted mental health diversion instead of facing trial for attempted murder, a California judge ruled.

The decision by Judge Susan Jakubowski follows testimonies from mental health experts diagnosing Patel with major depressive disorder, leading to a psychotic break during the January 2, 2023, incident. Despite opposition from the San Mateo County District Attorney’s Office, Patel will enter a rigorous mental health diversion program, including medication compliance and court monitoring, rather than facing three counts of attempted murder. Patel’s wife and family, who survived the crash, supported the ruling, highlighting the importance of mental health considerations in judicial outcomes.

Dharmesh Patel intentionally drove his Tesla off a 250-foot cliff known as 'Devil's Slide' on Highway 1, an incident that garnered widespread attention due to its dramatic nature and the survival of his wife and two young children, aged 7 and 4 at the time.

Authorities who reviewed evidence from the incident determined that the crash was an intentional act. Despite Patel initially claiming that the Tesla malfunctioned, the prosecutors charged him with three counts of attempted murder in January 2023.

In April, two doctors testified that Patel suffered from major depressive disorder and experienced a psychotic break during the incident. These findings were critical in Judge Susan Jakubowski’s decision to allow Patel entry into the mental health diversion program.

The mental health diversion program includes several strict conditions for Patel. He will remain in jail for several weeks before being released to his parents' home. He is required to report to court on a weekly basis, test twice a week for medication compliance, abstain from drugs and alcohol, and surrender his driver’s license and passport.

In addition to regular court appearances, Patel must test twice a week to show compliance with his medication regimen. He is also required to abstain from drugs and alcohol, surrender his driver’s license and passport, and his movements will be restricted to his treatment requirements and court reporting.

The court's decision was opposed by the San Mateo County District Attorney’s Office, which argued against mental health diversion for Patel. Despite this opposition, the judge concluded that Patel’s mental state at the time of the crash qualified him for the diversion program rather than proceeding with the attempted murder charges.

Patel’s wife, Neha Patel, supported his request for mental health diversion. She testified that he had been suffering from severe depression before the crash and did not want him prosecuted. Other family members also showed support for Patel, which influenced the court’s final decision.

During the court proceedings, it was revealed that Patel's psychotic break and resulting actions were influenced by delusions related to various fears. These included concerns about the ongoing fentanyl crisis, the war in Ukraine, and issues surrounding Jeffrey Epstein.

Judge Jakubowski’s ruling also specified Patel's treatment plan upon his release from jail. He will reside at his parents' home and will only be allowed to leave the premises for treatment sessions or to report to court. This strict regimen aims to ensure his compliance and monitor his mental health closely.

The court emphasized that Patel must adhere strictly to the conditions laid out in the mental health diversion program. Failure to comply could result in a revocation of the diversion status and a continuation of proceedings on the initial attempted murder charges.

Patel is scheduled to return to court on July 1, where further details of his treatment program and supervision will be determined. This next court date will be crucial in establishing the specifics of his ongoing care and adherence to the mandated conditions.

The Patel case highlights significant issues related to the intersection of mental health and the criminal justice system. The decision reflects an evolving approach to handling cases where mental illness plays a substantial role in the defendant’s actions.

Many are closely watching the outcome of Patel’s mental health diversion to understand how such programs can be effectively implemented and managed. The case reflects how mental health considerations are increasingly being integrated into judicial proceedings.