The legal saga of Dharmesh Patel, a California radiologist, took a dramatic turn on July 6, 2026, when his attempted murder charges were dismissed. This conclusion came after Patel completed a two-year mental health diversion program a journey that began with a tragic incident near Devil’s Slide in.
Patel, now 45, was accused of driving his family off a 300-foot cliff near Devil’s Slide, a stretch of Highway 1 south of Pacifica. The incident left first responders astonished that anyone survived the plunge onto the rocky beach below. The case has been a focal point of debate regarding mental health and the criminal justice system.
The Incident and Initial Charges
On January 2, 2026, Patel’s family vehicle, a Tesla, plummeted approximately 330 feet off Highway 1. The crash was initially attributed to tire issues, a claim Patel made. However, this narrative was contradicted by statements from his wife, Neha Patel, who told first responders that her husband was depressed and had purposely driven off the cliff. Investigators also ruled out the Tesla’s self-driving features as a contributing factor.
Patel was subsequently charged with three counts of attempted murder. His defense team argued that the incident was the result of a depression-driven psychotic break. This argument set the stage for a complex legal battle that would ultimately hinge on mental health evaluations and the efficacy of diversion programs.
Psychological Evaluations and Court Proceedings
At a mid-2026 hearing, psychologists testified that Patel had driven off the cliff in a desperate bid to kill his family. His delusions were rooted in fears that his children, aged 4 and 7 at the time, were better off dead than being forced into sex trafficking by kidnappers he believed were tied to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. These delusions also extended to concerns about the nation’s fentanyl crisis and the war in Ukraine.
Multiple psychologists diagnosed Patel with major depressive disorder. One clinician based his diagnosis on 18 tests and discussions with Patel and his siblings. However, the lone psychologist called by prosecutors disagreed, suggesting that Patel suffered from schizoaffective disorder and was not ready for release.
The Role of the Mental Health Diversion Program
The mental health diversion program, established by state lawmakers in, aims to address mental illness in jails and prisons by offering treatment for underlying conditions. Patel’s successful completion of this program was a pivotal factor in the dismissal of his charges. San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Sharon K. Cho referenced reports indicating that Patel was doing very well in the program and planned to continue his treatment.
Patel’s wife, Neha Patel, played a crucial role in advocating for her husband’s release and admission into the diversion program. She argued in open court that we’re not a family without him and stressed that she would not hesitate to seek help when needed. The treatment plan relied on Patel’s family to report any signs of further mental instability to the court.
The Legal and Medical Ramifications
Patel’s attorney, Joshua Bentley, emphasized that not one witness came in to testify that Mr. Patel poses a risk of danger to society. He described Patel as a decent human being, with zero criminal history. Despite these arguments, San Mateo County District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe opposed Patel’s admission to the diversion program, stating that Patel had received the break of a lifetime.
Months after the crash, the Medical Board of California secured a court order barring Patel from practicing medicine while facing the attempted murder charges. The status of his medical license remains unclear as of July 2026.
The dismissal of Patel’s charges comes as California tightens the reins on its mental health diversion laws. Beginning January 1, judges will have a lower bar for denying entry into such programs based on the level of risk defendants pose to the community. Assembly Bill 46, which initially excluded attempted murder charges from eligibility, had its provisions removed during the legislative process.
Wagstaffe remains opposed to the notion of defendants facing attempted murder charges being eligible for such programs, arguing that they can allow people accused of nearly killing others to get away without any accountability or punishment.
