Trial Court Errs in Overriding Psychologist’s Medical Opinion with Its Own and Making Factual Findings Without Substantial Evidence in Denying Mental Health Diversion.

 

Siam v. Superior Court (4^th Dist., Div. 3, 01/26/26)

 

In fall of 2020, Siam whacked his cab driver in the head with a skateboard and leapt out of the moving cab.  Siam was later found lying naked in a hotel elevator, sweating and spouting gibberish.  He was charged with assault with a deadly weapon for hitting the cabbie. 

Siam was then seen by one Dr. Kelin.  Kelin diagnosed Siam with paranoid schizophrenia in partial remission with medication.  Kelin found Siam not to be a violent or aggressive person and opined Siam’s violence against the cabbie stemmed from a paranoid break that made Siam fearful and delusional.  If Siam continued to take medication, attend therapy, and refrain from alcohol, Kelin thought Siam would respond positively.

Based in part on Kelin’s opinion, Siam was granted mental health diversion.  Siam complied with his treatment without incident until Spring 2022.

March 2022, a barefoot Siam walked into a Rolls Royce dealership and offered to buy “all of them,” with cash.  He left after trying to steal a hood ornament and making nonsensical statements.  Less than an hour later, Siam stole a yacht and crashed it into a seawall, injuring a woman on another craft, before being arrested and charged for vandalism, theft, etc.

At jail, Siam was transferred to the psych unit.  The staff psychiatrist , Dr. Haider, opined that if Siam were then released, he would meet the criteria for a 5150 involuntary commitment, but wasn’t dangerous to himself or others.  A delusional Siam refused the staff’s offer of psych meds.

Summer 2023, Siam was evaluated by psychologist Dr. Grajewski.  Grajewski noticed Siam’s medications were changed a week prior to his recent arrest.  He had previously been given medications for adjustment, panic, and anxiety disorders.  These were discontinued and new medications replaced them.

Grajewski concluded Siam had been misdiagnosed and undermedicated.  Grajewski diagnosed bipolar disorder along with panic and anxiety disorders, opining Siam was in an unmedicated manic phase on the day he stole the boat,  the mania keeping him from being able to make rational decisions or control delusional impulses.

Based in part on Grajewski’s reporting, Siam petitioned for mental health diversion in the boat case.  His diagnosed mental disorders were not excluded by statute; they played a large role in the offense; he would respond to treatment; he consented to treatment; and, consented to diversion.

The prosecution opposed diversion, offering no evidence rebutting or casting doubt on the opinions of Grajewski or Haider, instead making the argument that Siam “already had his chance,” at diversion in his 2020 case.

The trial court denied Siam’s diversion request.  It found Siam was eligible, but not suitable for two reasons.  First, it found Siam would not respond to treatment, and second, that Siam posed an unreasonable risk of committing a “super strike” offense if treated in the community.

It based the first finding partly on the court’s opinion that just because a doctor says a patient can respond to treatment, “doesn’t really cut it.”  It also referenced Siam’s failure to successfully complete the 2020 grant of diversion, saying that if Siam had been misdiagnosed it was his own fault for not telling his doctors the treatment was not working, equating this “failure,” with refusing treatment.

To support its finding that Siam was likely to commit a super strike (murder, rape, bombings, etc.) if treated out of custody, it said that whacking someone in the head with a skateboard and stealing a boat are both things that “could lead to death.” 

Siam, having been denied a writ of mandate in the trial court, petitioned the Court of Appeal., which grants the writ and reverses the trial court’s factual determinations finding them unsupported by substantial evidence.

As to the trial court’s finding that Siam did not satisfy the treatment responsiveness element, the panel notes that the proper factual issue is whether, “in the opinion of a qualified mental health expert,” Siam’s symptoms would respond to treatment.  Since Grajewski was such an expert (and the only one to offer evidence), the trial court was required to base its decision on her opinion.  It was error to conclude Grajewski’s professional opinion, “didn’t cut it.”

On the super strike issue, the panel finds the facts upon which the trial court denied diversion were not supported by substantial evidence.  As the denial was based on two judicial errors, the panel reverses the denial of Siam’s diversion.  But rather than order the trial court to grant diversion, remands it for another hearing consistent with the mental health diversion statute, PC §1001.36 and the opinion.  But not before a paragraph reminding the trial court of the strong legislative preference that diversion “apply as broadly as possible,” and a tacit admonishment on the limitations on the court residual discretion to deny an eligible and suitable candidate.