MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Sixty-eighth Session February 28, 1995 The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 8:05 a.m., on Tuesday, February 28, 1995, Chairman Anderson presiding in Room 332 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bernie Anderson, Chairman Mr. David E. Humke, Chairman Ms. Barbara E. Buckley, Vice Chairman Mr. Brian Sandoval, Vice Chairman Mr. Thomas Batten Mr. John C. Carpenter Mr. David Goldwater Mr. Mark Manendo Mrs. Jan Monaghan Ms. Genie Ohrenschall Mr. Richard Perkins Mr. Michael A. (Mike) Schneider Mrs. Dianne Steel Ms. Jeannine Stroth COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: None GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Senator Mark A. James, District No. 8 Senator Ernest E. Adler, Capital Senatorial District STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Dennis Neilander, Research Analyst Patty Hicks, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Ben Graham, Legislative Representative, Nevada District Attorney's Association Mr. David Sarnowski, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Criminal Division Mr. Stephen Helsley, State Liaison, National Rifle Association of America Ms. Laurel Stadler, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers Mr. Carlos C. Concha, Acting Deputy Chief, Parole and Probation Mr. John W. Riggs, Sr., Legislative Representative, Nevada State Rifle and Pistol Association Ms. Patricia Justice, Lobbyist, Clark County Lieutenant Stan R. Olsen, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Ms. Colleen Westlake, Nevada citizen SENATE BILL NO. 113 - Expands aggravated circumstances under which death penalty may be imposed for murder. Senator Mark A. James, sponsor, apprised the committee of the background of the bill. Essentially, it would add to the aggravating circumstances for first degree murder the fact that the murder was committed on a child under the age of 14. Those aggravating circumstances are used to determine whether or not a person would receive life imprisonment without the possibility of parole or death. Senator James gave the history behind this measure. In 1972 in the case of Fuhrman vs. Georgia, the U. S. Supreme Court held the death penalty as unconstitutional, as applied. Not because it was cruel and unusual punishment; but, it was unconstitutional because it was given out in arbitrary fashion. It was given out in substantial racial bias in its application in various states. It was unconstitutional throughout the country, but the court left open the possibility that states could amend their laws to set forth certain criteria to be considered by juries for application of the death penalty. To ensure the death penalty would be applied equally in all cases of first degree murder, Nevada amended their laws to add those aggravating circumstances. In Nevada there is a separate hearing where once a person is convicted of first degree murder, they separately consider these various aggravating circumstances. They also have to consider a list of mitigating circumstances. A determination has to be made if any aggravating circumstances are not outweighed by the mitigating circumstances involved in the crime. If they do, then they can find the death penalty is appropriate for the crime. There has never been an aggravating circumstance in Nevada if the victim was a child. This measure would follow a number of other states who also have this aggravating circumstance. Premeditated murder of a child in the first degree is the highest level of culpability as far as intent is concerned. For example, if the murder is committed without apparent motive and other people are endangered in the course of the crime, it is an aggravating circumstance in the amendment. If it was a random killing of a child without motive and others were endangered, the death penalty would be applicable under that aggravating circumstance. If the person singled out a child and had a motive for killing, for example, the child may expose the perpetrator as his molester. Then there is a motive without others being endangered. In this instance, there would be no aggravating circumstance to warrant the death penalty. Nevada needs legislation to allow the jury in every case when a child is the victim of a first degree murder to consider whether or not the death penalty is warranted. Finally, Senator James informed the committee on how the age of the child was set. He originally wanted the age to be under 18 years. They found in research of cases in other jurisdictions, if you move the age from under 12 to under 17, questions of the intent and knowledge of the defendant arise. If the age is higher it is not quite as obvious that the person is a child. An additional requirement is the person knew or should have known the victim was under statutory age. Whereas, if the age was moved lower, the knowledge element is not needed. If the age of the victim is kept under 14 years, then the element of the defendant's knowledge of the victim's age is not required. It makes a more useful prosecutorial tool and he urged the committee to pass the bill without amending the age. Mr. Humke stated there does not appear to be any fiscal note and requested information on fiscal impact. Senator James replied it was an issue raised in the Senate. He conferred with Mr. Bayer, Director of Prisons, who felt there would not be a fiscal impact on the prison system. The effect on local government was raised in committee and testimony indicated it would have an impact. In death penalty cases a defendant is entitled to court appointed attorney and may require additional investigation by the defense. Senator James asked Mr. Graham to research the fiscal impact. He read an opinion from Mr. Graham. If a defendant is indigent, the cost falls to the county. It was felt the killing of a child under 14 years would be minimal fiscal impact. In Clark County several cases a year may arise. The fiscal impact to Clark County would not exceed $100,000 a year. Mr. Humke advised of a bill dealing for fiscal impact of capital murder for rural counties. The Ways and Means Committee is considering an institutional change to provide for those cases in rural counties. The fiscal impact for larger counties is minimal. Mr. Humke asked if death row convicts are more expensive to program for at the State Prison. There are two burdens on the system: (1) life imprisonment without parole, (2) execution of the death penalty. After prison officials reviewed their budget, they indicated to Senator James it would be minimal fiscal impact. Ms. Buckley asked if data was gathered regarding the number of times in five years additional aggravating circumstances would have been utilized. She requested information on the types of crimes, child abuse, stranger murders, etc. Senator James responded anecdotal evidence was presented by Ben Graham and others before the committee. The original bill was requested after researching the law in regard to child abuse, homicide, motivated killing of a child. This does not extend to recklessness or other kinds of behavior that end in death, but only to first degree murder. Mr. Carpenter believed a fund may be set up to help rural counties defray the large expense of murder trials. It may take care of this type of case in rural counties. Senator James expressed support for this measure in high profile cases. Chairman Anderson invited Mr. Ben Graham of the Clark County District Attorney's Office and Nevada District Attorneys Association to come forward and testify. Mr. Graham was accompanied by Chief Criminal Deputy David Sarnowski of the Attorney General's Office. Over the years various aggravating factors have been considered and added. The Supreme Court ruled before a death penalty can be considered, there must be a first degree murder. Then the jury must find certain aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt before a death penalty can be issued. S.B. 113 has a list of aggravating circumstances. After a guilt phase where the jury finds the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of first degree intentional murder and the state has requested a death penalty, then under this bill a hearing is conducted to determine whether or not the state can prove aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt. In 1993 an additional factor was added, No. 11, where a person went to a house and systematically killed the whole family one at a time. A court ruled that was not placing more than one person in danger. It also ruled it was not having been previously convicted of killing. This is the basis for adding the No. 11 aggravating circumstance. N.R.S. 200.035 defines mitigating circumstances. The state has to prove there are aggravating circumstances that outweigh all mitigating factors before a jury can come back with the death penalty verdict. Mitigating circumstances are no significant prior criminal history, acting under the influence of mental or emotional distress, or where defendant and victim were participating in some type of joint criminal conduct with an accomplice. Any other mitigating circumstance is added. The defendant offers evidence of mitigating circumstances. The state must prove aggravating circumstances. A jury must find an aggravating circumstance or they can find no mitigating circumstance. Possibly a factor that has become apparent is senseless killing of young people. The fiscal impact is minimal, one or two cases where the young age of victim is the only aggravating circumstance. Normally there would be other aggravating circumstances. One of them additionally would be the murder of this young person. The reason it is important, in order to have a death penalty, the murder has to be aggravated. Mr. Humke advised of his intent to make a do pass motion on this bill. It is prudent upon this committee to ask the fiscal questions. His question regards number eight in the statute on page two, line 14. In child abuse cases there has been one case in Washoe County. The prosecution and death penalty certification theory was it was child abuse and death was by torture. He wondered if it was a frequently used theory in child abuse cases. Mr. Graham deferred to Mr. David Sarnowski of the Attorney General's Office. Chief Deputy Attorney General David Sarnowski addressed the concerns of the committee. Presently, on death row there are three persons solely because a jury found beyond a reasonable doubt aggravating factor number eight existed in a case involving a victim under the age of 14. Those cases are in litigation. In each case the murderers were live-in boyfriends of the mothers of children, who were not the natural parent of the child. In each case there was some evidence of prolonged abuse by the male offender over a period of time. The type of abuse in one case involved immersion of the child in scalding water, hanging the child in a closet, and placing the child in a closet where the child ultimately fell to her death. It is problematic from a prosecutor's standpoint to show the perpetrator intended to kill the child by placing in a closet on a high shelf. The Nevada Supreme Court requires aggravating factor number 8. Although those factors now read in the disjunctive, the court has construed them in the conjunctive. In order to prove depravity of mind, either torture or mutilation must be proved. It dates back to the first death penalty case, Deutscher, tried under this statute in 1977. His case did not involve the killing of a child, but the state sought to impose the death penalty with the finding of depravity of mind. After 14 years the Deutscher case was finally concluded in 1994. He was saddened to report the case had to go back for a new penalty phase because of the infirmity of the depravity of mind aggravating circumstances as interpreted by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Torture and mutilation cases are hard to prove. It must show a jury could reasonably conclude the offender was also depraved in committing the crime. In many cases with young victims the prosecutor does not have evidence of any one of these aggravating circumstances. Crimes committed by a prison inmate do not apply. An offender may be convicted of a prior violent offense as one of a possible aggravating circumstances. In each of the previously mentioned cases none of those inmates were subject to any other aggravating factors. Therefore, the prosecution was put to the difficulty of proving aggravating circumstance number eight. In addition to imposing an aggravating circumstance, the facts are either black or white the victim is under 14 years. This affords a very vulnerable class of victims the protection they deserve. If a child abuse situation goes to the extent of harming the child to its ultimate demise, then the prosecutor should have the latitude to consider asking for the death penalty. If the trial judge and jury are asked to impose the death penalty, they should have as an option the ability to find that this aggravating circumstance alone suffices to qualify the defendant for the death penalty. Of course, the finder of fact must take into consideration all the facts including the mitigating circumstances. The law requires if one juror feels that something the defendant presented was mitigating, that juror's decision must be given effect. If two jurors believe the fact that the defendant behaved well in trial is mitigating, then they must be allowed to find that and weigh that mitigation against the aggravating circumstances. This is a qualitative process, not a quantitative one. It is fair and applies to a small class of cases. Within the last 18 months several child abuse homicides in Washoe County have been highly publicized. At least one of which the state is pursuing the death penalty under the other provisions of the statute. In terms of fiscal impact, at the county level it is not significant. These high profile cases are expensive. At the prison level, a life term inmate or any other inmate without a murder conviction could be confined at a close custody level, such as death row inmates. Close custody level necessitates housing at least permanently in Ely Prison or temporarily in other facilities. Maximum security beds cost more than other types of beds. As a result of this amendment, the number of death row inmates would necessitate a higher level security bed, dependent on inmate's behavior inside the prison system. Ms. Ohrenschall asked Mr. Graham what the effect would be if both victim and perpetrator were under 14 years of age. Mr. Graham advised if there were no additional amendments to the statutes regarding culpability for age, the murder would still apply as it is in the current statute. There is an automatic exclusion from the juvenile process for any age charged with murder or attempted murder. Chairman Anderson inquired when the last execution occurred in Nevada and if any were anticipated from the inmates on death row. Mr. Sarnowski replied the last execution in Nevada occurred in June of 1990. Nevada has five cases since 1977 all of which the prisoner abandoned the appeal procedure. Presently, there are two cases in the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. If decided in favor of the state they could lead to possibly an execution within a year from now. Mr. Graham informed there may be legislation forthcoming regarding life without the possibility of parole. It may reduce the number of death penalty cases sought by the state. He assured these other matters may reduce significantly the costs. Ms. Colleen Westlake, a life-long resident of Reno, testified she is the mother of three sons. She expressed her viewpoint that a price cannot be put on a child who is murdered. No cost can be too great to protect our greatest asset which is our children. Child abuse is a defenseless crime. A five year old cannot defend themselves from rape, scalding, punching, thrown against walls, and thrown out a window. Nevada needs to send a definite message that child abuse will not be tolerated. More stricter laws are warranted. The problem of imposing the death penalty is not uniform. She felt the death penalty is a deterrent and was in favor of the death penalty. The perpetrators cannot get out of prison to harm more children. She was alarmed at the increase of child abuse reported In the newspaper. The message of tough on crime should be sent. Mrs. Westlake entered into the record attached as (Exhibit C) a letter her grandmother received the silver pen award for about child abuse. There being no further testimony on S. B. 113, Chairman Anderson brought the bill back to committee. SENATE BILL NO. 113 - Expands aggravated circumstances under which death penalty may be imposed for murder. ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED DO PASS ON S.B. 113. ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. SENATE BILL NO. 41 - Revises provisions relating to disposition of confiscated weapons by law enforcement agencies. Chairman Anderson expressed his appreciation to Senator Ernest E. Adler, Capital Senatorial District, for his patience in waiting to testify for S.B. 41. Senator Adler stated S.B. 41 was the Interim Study Committee bill. It was brought by a request from Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and other police agencies in the state. Currently, the Nevada law states that all weapons confiscated must be disposed of by public auction excluding exceptional circumstances. This allows police agencies also to destroy confiscated weapons in crimes. There are amendments proposed by Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and Clark County. Mr. Adler did not have any objections to the amendments which offer additional options for disposal of weapons, such as transfers to licensed gun dealerships, exchanges, giving collector's items to a museum. The intent of this bill is to give the police agencies broad latitude in disposal of weapons. Any amendments that allow police agencies discretion on how weapons are disposed of or sold, just makes it a better bill. The current law is unacceptable. It only gives one option for disposal of weapons which is not broad enough. In his opinion confiscated weapons should be able to be traded or freely disposed of. Mr. Stephen Helsley, State Liaison, National Rifle Association of America, and Mr. John W. Riggs, Sr., Legislative Representative, Nevada State Rifle and Pistol Association, testified they are in support in concept of the second draft of S.B. 41. Copies of proposed amendments (Exhibit D) were distributed to the committee and the reasons in support thereof. They believe police and sheriffs should be allowed to trade as opposed to sell. The reason for that is some police supply firms specialize in trade for radio equipment for confiscated guns. Collector's items should be donated to museums or public groups that would benefit from their use or possession. If the firearms seized were stolen, its incumbent upon law enforcement to determine if they are stolen and return them to the rightful owner. A list of guns destroyed should be furnished to Nevada's two forensic labs to ensure they are not crime related. The crime labs should have first option to possessing the guns if needed for a reference collection. Ms. Patricia Justice, Lobbyist, Clark County, and Lieutenant Stan R. Olsen, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, proposed the following language: Section c, page 2, line 1, to read, "destroy the confiscated instrument or weapon or direct the destruction of the. . ."; and, line 2, "confiscated instrument or weapon if it is not otherwise required to be destroyed pursuant to subsection six." Chairman Anderson concluded that another officer or employee of the law enforcement agency to destroy will be deleted. He inquired as to the purpose of the proposed amendment. Ms. Justice replied their general services administration advised by having the language exclusive to law enforcement agencies, it would prohibit them contracting pursuant to N.R.S. 332 to contract with another party to oversee the destruction of the weapons. In particular, if a foundry or metal recycling plant wanted to melt down the weapons in bulk, it would be more cost effective and safe. It should be able to be contracted out. Lieutenant Olsen advised the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department currently oversees the destruction of weapons at a facility that shreds it into little pieces of metal. By policy, a division commander has to oversee the destruction. The weapons are not destroyed by the department itself. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department does take from smaller agencies weapons to be destroyed. Chairman Anderson requested the proposed amendments submitted in written form for the subcommittee work session. Further, Lieutenant Olsen advised they had no objections with National Rifle Association of America's proposed amendment. In reference to instruments in the bill, Mr. Carpenter inquired what these were. Lieutenant Olsen replied that some weapons are spears, daggers, dirks, homemade guns, and unique items. They are considered dangerous weapons. Mr. Humke asked if the fiscal note on this bill was examined by Lieutenant Olsen. The simple fiscal note was read as to state impact: "both the Highway Patrol Division and the Investigation Division have made appropriate arrangements to have weapons destroyed that does not incur any costs." The responding local governments report little or no fiscal impact for this bill. This fiscal note imparts very little information. Mr. Humke requested fiscal information from Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department before processing this bill. Lieutenant Olsen indicated that information would be available by March 1. Chairman Anderson confirmed for Mr. Carpenter that the second reprint of S.B. 41 is currently under consideration. If the intent of this bill was to take weapons off the street, Mr. Carpenter felt the bill really does nothing. Lieutenant Olsen commented confiscated weapons are considered deadly weapons. Currently, nearly all the weapons are destroyed with the exception of museum quality pieces and hunting quality firearms, shotguns and rifles that can be used for sport hunting. In the last auction, the county treasurer goes to the impound area and examines weapons to be auctioned. As a rule, basically everything is destroyed. Mr. Carpenter advised the statute reads the governing body in the county or city, such as the county commissioners, city council, or the metropolitan police committee on fiscal affairs, direct what will happen to confiscated weapons. He felt the law enforcement agencies do not have the authority unless the governing body authorizes disposition of the weapons. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department`s current practice is exactly as proposed in this bill. The purpose of this amendment is to clean house and give them the laws to do what they are already doing any way. There is no intent on the part of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department to change existing policy to start destroying less weapons. Several years ago, public auction was discontinued. Mr. Carpenter informed that in other counties and cities, the commissioners and city councils have the authority to decide the disposition. He reiterated if this bill was to get weapons off the street, it is not doing more than the original legislation. It is putting them back on the street with the proposed amendment to trade the weapons to licensed retailers or wholesalers in exchange for equipment necessary. As a matter of principle, the amendment has the possibility of putting more weapons out on the street. Lieutenant Olsen stated the intent was to allow smaller agencies, that are not funded in areas needed, to obtain equipment under this amendment. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department would not take that opportunity. As a former member of the Interim Study Committee, Mr. Perkins related a concern that was addressed by that committee, the current law only allowed for specific ways to dispose of confiscated weapons. It appeared most agencies in the state were not complying with state law because it was so restricted. The proposed language was to add flexibility for law enforcement to dispose of weapons in a manner suitable to that agency. Most law enforcement agencies fall under a department head who is appointed. There are only a couple in the state that are elected with sovereign powers. It would only come into conflict with those particular elected officials because those that are appointed would have to follow the direction of their governing body. Mr. Perkins did not believe it would have that dramatic an effect. In reviewing the first and second reprint of S.B. 41, Ms. Buckley concurred with her distinguished colleague from Elko. The first bill eliminates the ability of the county to sell the confiscated weapons at public auctions. In the second reprint that section is deleted. While proposed amendments add more flexibility with regard to the disposition of weapons, she was confused as to why the intent of the bill is now deleted. Ms. Buckley requested Mr. Neilander to research why the bill lost its original intent. Chairman Anderson reminded committee Mr. Neilander is research staff for all the members. He is not open to debate. He is here not to portray that particular point of view nor defend it. He was the research staff to A.C.R. 71. He is not a proponent to the legislation. He was a staff member to Senator Adler's committee, and therefore, can testify in part. He is not here for purposes of defending or opposing the bill. Mr. Neilander echoed Mr. Perkins comments. Two issues addressed by the interim study committee were public auction and technical violations of the statute. This amendment would bring those agencies into compliance and allow more flexibility. He pointed out on page 2, lines 8 and 9, the existing law required a public auction once a year. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department testified they did not participate in public auction. Technically to some degree, they would be in violation of this statute. Mr. Neilander will check to see why the public auction language was deleted. Chairman Anderson stated this bill will be scheduled for a work session. SENATE BILL NO. 61 - Requires person in custody to sign waiver of extradition proceedings as condition of release. Mr. Ben Graham, Legislative Representative, Nevada District Attorney's Association, expressed a desire to address the committee and give some indication as to Mr. Carlos C. Concha's (Acting Deputy Chief, Parole and Probation) participation. Mr. Graham's regular duties in the Clark County District Attorney's Office, involve extradition of fugitives. Other states allow prisoners in custody, to be released on their own recognizance, make bail, or probation violator. One of the conditions of release was if you flee the area of jurisdiction, they would waive the procedures under the Uniform Extradition Act. An indictment or charge must be warranted, and confirmation the prisoner is the defendant with the paperwork in order. When he saw these waivers in use in other states, he came before this body in 1993 and asked permission to authorize our judges to send people back to other states on the pre-signed waivers. This committee agreed it was permissible to recognize the pre-signed waivers from other states. The trend throughout the United States was to have pre-signed waivers which have been upheld consistently by the courts. Nevada's Constitution provides a defendant is entitled to bail except under certain circumstances. Conditions are placed upon bail. In 1989 to be released on one's own recognizance (O.R.), a pre-signed waiver must be signed, but bail was not addressed. Initial bill draft request included bail as a condition. Parole and Probation and Mothers Against Drunk Drivers drew attention to the fact that in addition to bailees, parolees and probationers, there are inmates of the prison system released to residential confinement who flee and leave the state. Mr. Concha's proposed amendment (Exhibit E) was distributed to the committee which adds N.R.S. Chapter 209 to Sec. 5. This amendment would be cost effective and delay the need in the Attorney General's Office to add staff in four or five years. Mr. Goldwater requested clarification in regard to Uniform Extradition Act. Mr. Graham clarified this amendment would aid in Federal extradition to make it as expeditious as possible to get prisoners back to the requesting state. If they refuse to waive their rights, there is a regular procedure. If they waive their right to avail themselves to the extradition by seeking parole, probation, O.R., and treatment under Chapter 209, it has been upheld by the courts. Texas requires their prisoners to sign before release on parole. Traditionally, the prisoner is asked if he will waive. The prisoner will be released if the state does not take custody of the prisoner in two weeks. On occasion a prisoner will not sign the waiver. A check is determined if a pre-signed waiver was signed when the prisoner was released. It does not require the Governor's warrant process. Mr. Graham noted bail bondsmen have the best pre-signed waivers. Chairman Anderson asked if Section 5 of this bill increases the opportunity for technical violations. Mr. Graham stated parolees are released with conditions of not leaving the state without permission. If they do and signed the pre-waiver, it would not in any way increase a technical revocation process. Chairman Anderson noted the high number of probation violaters in the Las Vegas Detention Center. He asked if this amendment would add to the burden of overcrowding in the jail facility. Mr. Graham advised these are prisoners who would return to Nevada. It costs a lot in travel expense to travel out of state to bring a prisoner back. This bill will expedite the process but not increase it any. He thought fiscal consideration would be a negative effect. It will save rather than cost. Mr. Humke commented that three different chapters of the statutes will be affected by this bill. Under Chapter 176, probation provisions can compel a person to sign a waiver. Under proposed changes in Section 5, residential confinement, it is clear a person can be compelled to sign a waiver. In Mr. Graham's previous testimony there are certain cases where the person cannot be compelled to sign a waiver. Mr. Graham explained in 1993, it said if you are eligible for parole in Nevada, it can be revoked. Alternatively, prison time would be served out until discharge. Nevada has the mandatory release program and one would be released whether a waiver is signed or not. In order to be released from prison, inmates are eager to sign a waiver to be released. Mr. Carlos C. Concha, Acting Deputy Chief, Parole and Probation, testified regarding S.B. 61, Section 5 addresses parole and Section 1 addresses probation. Chapter 5 DUI offenders are deleted. They are inmates released to residential confinement with supervision of Parole and Probation. Chapter 209.429 of N.R.S. proposed amendment by adding thereto a new section to read as indicated in (Exhibit E). Mr. Neilander will check with the drafter to see if a new section needs to be created or amendment added to N.R.S. 209.429. Mr. David Sarnowski, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Criminal Division, testified that this bill would have a positive fiscal impact. It will eliminate the district attorney's office or Department of Parole and Probation from having to prepare a packet which eliminates the court certifying the packet. It eliminates his review of the packet for form, content, and validity. To review one of these cases, it takes four to six minutes. Presently, he reviews ten or twelve a week. He asked the committee to favorably look upon the proposed amendment and the bill as originally intended as well. Ms. Laurel Stadler, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, testified in support of this bill and proposed amendment they brought to the attention of Parole and Probation and the Attorney General's Office. Particularly with the expansion of the 305 Program, it is a needed amendment to the bill. ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 61. ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. Chairman Anderson assigned Ms. Buckley to make the floor presentation of S.B. 61. BILL DRAFT REQUEST 3-1742 - Request for committee introduction to increase limitation of amount of damages recoverable in certain tort actions. Chairman Anderson entertained a motion for committee introduction. ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER MOVED FOR INTRODUCTION OF THE BILL DRAFT. ASSEMBLYMAN BATTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. Request for a bill draft to increase the Homestead Act to $120,000. ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO MOVED FOR BILL DRAFT REQUEST. ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. Chairman displayed an inmate's letter and art work, indicating original will be on file in the office. Committee sessions will start at 8:00 a.m. commencing March 1, 1995, and thereafter. There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Anderson adjourned the meeting at 9:55 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Patty Hicks, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman Assemblyman David E. Humke, Chairman Assembly Committee on Judiciary February 28, 1995 Page