A man accused of a racially motivated rampage that ended in a downtown homeless encampment and left one victim permanently disabled will face trial after the state’s highest court refused to hear his case.
The lack of action by the California Supreme Court means a previous ruling by a state appellate court that a trial judge abused her discretion by granting the suspect entry into a mental health diversion program now stands.
As of this month, Job Uriah Taylor, 28, is charged with the willful, premeditated and deliberate attempted murder of Christian Hornburg, along with three counts of assault with a deadly weapon and one count of assault causing great bodily injury. The charges stem from a now three-year old case and carry multiple hate crime enhancements that mean if convicted as charged, Taylor faces a potential life sentence in state prison.
The California Supreme Court declined May 27 to review the Second District Court of Appeal's March 5 decision in *People v. Superior Court (Taylor)*, leaving in place a published ruling that directs the Los Angeles County Superior Court to vacate its diversion order and deny the motion. Because the opinion was certified for publication, it stands as binding precedent throughout California.
The Attacks
Prosecutors allege that on the morning of March 3, 2023, Taylor went on a violent, racially motivated rampage targeting multiple victims near the Downtown Santa Monica Expo Line station, attacking at least four people with a metal pipe within the span of approximately one hour.
According to the appellate opinion, Taylor attacked Hornburg, who is Black, while he slept and struck him over the head with the pipe, then stomped on his head while Hornburg lay on the ground. When Jade Carter, also Black, tried to help, Taylor attacked her with the pipe as well, hurling racial slurs throughout. Both Hornburg and Carter were transported to a hospital. Hornburg sustained life-altering injuries and was subsequently confined to a rehabilitation facility.
Police body camera footage showed Taylor continuing his racist outburst until he was taken into custody and prosecutors also allege that earlier that same morning, Taylor threatened a third victim, Michael Okyere, with the metal pipe and shouted racial slurs at him before nearby firefighters intervened and chased him away.
Following his arrest, Taylor told investigators he had been sent to Santa Monica to target Black residents.
Mental Health History
Court records detail Taylor’s extensive history of mental illness, substance abuse and repeated failures to comply with treatment.
Taylor's records show psychiatric symptoms dating to childhood, including auditory and visual hallucinations, mood instability and diagnoses that included schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder and psychotic disorders. He had previously been hospitalized after threatening his mother and destroying the family home, and after threatening bystanders with a rebar club in 2021 — an incident in which he tested positive for amphetamine, cannabis and cocaine.
Taylor's sister told investigators that she and their mother had admitted him to mental health facilities in Louisiana as an adult on multiple occasions, but that he always signed himself out within 24 hours. Medical records showed he repeatedly refused prescribed medications.
By Taylor's own account, he was discharged from a psychiatric facility shortly before the March 2023 attacks. He told a defense psychologist he had not followed through on hospital discharge instructions because he left them on a bus, and that at the time of the attacks he was using methamphetamine and PCP and had been experiencing hallucinations.
The Diversion Proceedings
Taylor’s attorneys filed a motion for mental health diversion in June 2024 under Penal Code Section 1001.36, which allows courts to postpone or permanently set aside prosecution for defendants with qualifying mental disorders who agree to treatment and do not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.
In support of the motion, defense psychologist Robin Rhodes Campbell concluded that Taylor suffered from a qualifying, treatable mental health condition that played a significant role in the offenses. However, Campbell's opinion on public safety risk was conditional — she wrote that Taylor would not pose an unreasonable risk "if his psychiatric symptoms were controlled with treatment" and "if the defendant abstains from substance use." She did not opine that such control was likely.
The trial court appointed Dr. Montgomery from the Office of Diversion and Reentry to independently evaluate Taylor. Montgomery testified that Taylor was stable while in custody and on medication and that the ODR program, which includes long-acting injectable medications, could treat his condition. She acknowledged, however, that the ODR facility was unlocked and that if Taylor chose to leave, staff could attempt to intervene but could not physically stop him. When prosecutors pressed her on whether Taylor would pose an unreasonable risk if he left the facility and stopped taking medication, Montgomery declined to offer an opinion, saying she could not make that prediction. The trial court discouraged further questioning on the point, noting that witnesses could not "predict the future."
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Lana Kim granted Taylor's diversion motion on March 12, 2025, ordering him into a residential, medically assisted treatment program and setting monthly court appearances to review his progress. The court made no express finding on whether Taylor would pose an unreasonable risk to public safety if released into the community.
The Appeal
The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office appealed, arguing that no evidence supported the trial court's implicit finding that Taylor would be safe to release for community treatment given his documented history of abandoning facilities and refusing medication.
The Second District Court of Appeal agreed. In an opinion authored by Presiding Justice Rothschild and joined by Justices Bendix and M. Kim, the court held that the obligation to determine whether a defendant poses an unreasonable risk to public safety necessarily includes determining whether the defendant will follow through on a treatment agreement — and that the trial court had failed to make that determination.
"The obligation to determine whether a defendant will pose an unreasonable risk of danger to the public if granted diversion necessarily includes determining whether the defendant will abandon treatment," the court wrote.
The court noted that while the defense's expert offered only a conditional opinion and the court-appointed expert declined to assess future risk at all, the record contained substantial evidence that Taylor would abandon treatment — including his history of signing out of facilities within 24 hours and his admission that he was discharged from a psychiatric hospital and stopped taking his medication shortly before the attacks.
The court emphasized that its ruling was not based on the severity of Taylor's alleged conduct but on the absence of any evidence that he would comply with a voluntary treatment program.
The appellate court issued its initial ruling Sept. 30, 2025, then vacated it and granted a rehearing. Following additional briefing, the court reaffirmed its decision March 5. The California Supreme Court declined review May 27, leaving the published opinion in place as statewide precedent.
The case is being prosecuted by Deputy District Attorney Steve Dickman of the Hate Crimes Unit and will now be heard at the Airport Courthouse.