MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Sixty-eighth Session March 13, 1995 The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 9:40 a.m., on Monday, March 13, 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 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 Ms. Dianne Steel Ms. Jeannine Stroth STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Dennis Neilander, Research Analyst Joi Davis, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Judy Jacoboni, Chapter President, Mothers Against Drunk Driving Susan McCurdy, State of Nevada Parole Board Lupe Gunderson, State of Nevada Parole Board Mr. Neilander distributed to the committee proposed Amendments to Assembly Bill 88 which would be presented on the floor today. Chairman Anderson reiterated for the committee the amendments would provide $100,000 to Washoe County for establishing a Drug Court. The bill, if passed, will proceed concurrently to Ways and Means. Mr. Carpenter asked where the money for the Las Vegas Drug Court was coming from. Chairman Anderson explained one of the primary funding sources for the Drug Court came from the DUI schools in addition to the county and municipal levels providing some funds. Mr. Carpenter stated he had a request for a bill draft regarding the amendment the Attorney General wanted on a previously defeated bill. Chairman Anderson interjected the request follows the AG's memo to file for state or political subdivisions. ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION FOR REQUEST FOR BILL DRAFT. ASSEMBLYMAN STEEL SECONDED THE MOTION. In discussing the proposed bill request, Mr. Sandoval stated he had a conversation with the Attorney General after the hearing last Friday. He was informed by her that she does not need the political subdivision provision within her amendment and wishes to limit it to just the State of Nevada. Chairman Anderson, after receiving approval from the maker of the motion, Mr. Carpenter, and the seconder, Ms. Steel, stated the Motion would be amended to clarify only the State of Nevada. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. Mr. Neilander addressed the letter submitted to the committee a couple weeks ago from Supreme Court Justice Young requesting a bill draft to clarify language in Subsection 8 of the death penalty statute having to do with aggravating factors, in particularity, the clause "depravity of mind." Mr. Neilander explained the Senate has already requested such bill draft and their bill draft was applied for a week before this request. ASSEMBLYMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO WITHDRAW THE AMENDMENT FOR REQUEST FOR BILL DRAFT PREVIOUSLY ORDERED. ASSEMBLYMAN BUCKLEY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. ASSEMBLY BILL 201 - Requires date for first hearing to consider release of offender on parole to be set when offender is sentenced for crime. Assemblyman Stroth, the primary sponsor of A.B. 201 stated the subject matter surrounding A.B. 201 has been covered in other hearings by victims organizations. However, she would like the committee to consider the importance and the gravity of allowing victims to know when the first parole date could possibly be so they can be emotionally prepared. Understanding the many bills being presented during this legislation regarding the parole board, the elimination of the parole board, and truth in sentencing, Ms. Stroth suggested hearing the bill today but withholding any action until the committee can see the direction the other related bills are taking. Ms. Monaghan asked about the definition of "victim" pursuant to how the statutes currently read and A.B. 186 which would change the definition to "a relative of the victim." Ms. Stroth stated "victim" is defined in the Victims Bill of Rights, S.J.R. 2, and she would like the definition to be consistent with that. Ms. Jacoboni, Chapter President, MADD, stated their organization supports A.B. 201 with the inclusion of a proposed amendment requesting notification to victims of the parole board's decision. While they are notifying the Department of Prisons and the Parole and Probation Department, they should also notify the victims if the notification letter from the victim is on file. Susan McCurdy, Executive Secretary, State of Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners, and Lupe Gunderson, Chairman of the State of Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners testified in opposition to A.B. 201 in its present form. Ms. Gunderson presented a letter to the committee setting forth their concerns regarding the bill. A copy of the letter is attached hereto as (Exhibit C). Ms. Buckley asked if it was correct to say that if the statute was changed to require the Department of Prisons to prepare the schedule, then the parole board would not be opposed to A.B. 201. Ms. Gunderson stated that was correct. Chairman Anderson concurred with Mr. Carpenter stating A.B. 201 should be considered along with truth-in-sentencing bills from the Senate and from the Assembly. Mr. Neilander clarified currently the notification to victims comes directly from the parole board. So if the Department of Prisons is being required to calculate the date they would have to decide which entity would be doing the notifying. Chairman Anderson asked Ms. McCurdy how much time they have between the time they receive the statement from the Department of Prisons that an inmate is eligible for a parole or probation hearing and the actual scheduling of the hearing. Ms. McCurdy explained they have a 30-day notification process. The list provided by the prison to them is generated 60 days ahead and then it is mailed out to the victims approximately 30 days prior to the entire month of hearings. She also commented that some victims wish to personally appear and others simply wish to write their concerns. The board refers to the definition of "victim" in the Nevada Revised Statutes to determine who are victims in each case. Chairman Anderson inquired on how the status of an offender can change during the 60 day initial print-out. Do the victims get re-notified if there is a status change and the hearing will not be taking place? Ms. McCurdy stated they attempt to notify the victim at all times and they are in contact with them via telephone right up to the time of hearing. Ms. McCurdy stated there are many victims they cannot get a hold of since they have no current address on them. They have devised a Victim Impact Statement Sheet which has been provided to all the District Attorneys to complete which is assisting in them obtaining information on existing victims. She stated they do not notify the victim of the decisions of the board unless they have specifically requested them to do so. She stressed they would have no objection with notifying the victims of the board's decision. Mr. Sarnowski, Chief Criminal Justice Division, Nevada Attorney General's office, suggested a couple technical aspects to the bill. One, specific, effective dates should be placed in the bill for subsection 1 so the board has time to do what it is required to do and then the regulations could be disseminated to the sentencing court. He suggested two different methods to accomplish this establishing one date certain, perhaps October 1st and then a follow-up date perhaps three months later for the effective date for the court requirement. Or, specify time periods rather than effective dates. Secondly, the AG would suggest to specify for the benefit of all parties the bill will not be effective except for those offenses committed after a date certain in light of the ex post facto laws and to serve to minimize future litigation. Chairman Anderson announced a short break at 10:10 a.m. The committee reconvened at 10:30 a.m. ASSEMBLY BILL 165 - Provides criminal penalty under certain circumstances for providing minor access to firearm. Chairman Anderson, noting the primary sponsor of the bill was not present, opened testimony in favor or against A.B. 165 to the public. There being no testimony before the committee the meeting adjourned at 10:33 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Joi Davis, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman Assemblyman David E. Humke, Chairman Assembly Committee on Judiciary March 13, 1995 Page