MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Sixty-eighth Session March 24, 1995 The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 8:14 a.m., on Friday, March 24, 1995, Chairman Humke presiding in Room 332 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. 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 Ms. Dianne Steel Ms. Jeannine Stroth GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Former Legislator, Richard Bennett STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Dennis Neilander, Research Analyst Joi Davis, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Ben Graham, Clark County District Attorneys Association Valerie Cooney, President, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association Chairman Humke opened the meeting stating a quorum was present and the committee work session was open for business. SENATE BILL 111 - Revises provisions governing notice of hearings for attorney's fees requested for administration of estate of decedent. ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 111. ASSEMBLYMAN SANDOVAL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * SENATE BILL 112 - Authorizes enforcement of liability of surety for executor or administrator of estate of deceased person without independent action. ASSEMBLYMAN BUCKLEY MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 112. ASSEMBLYMAN BATTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairman Humke asked Ms. Buckley to introduce S.B. 111 and S.B. 112 on the floor. SENATE BILL 114 (FIRST REPRINT) - Makes various changes to provisions prohibiting harassment and stalking. Mr. Anderson advised the committee his concerns regarding S.B. 114 were addressed with the primary sponsor, Senator Mark James, to reach a compromise. The result of that compromise is included herein as (Exhibit B), "Conceptual Amendments to Senate Bill 114." Mr. Anderson outlined the amendments for the committee. Upon Mr. Carpenter's inquiry, Mr. Neilander provided a general overview of the current stalking laws, stalking as it relates to S.B. 114, and the amendments proposed to S.B. 114. Ben Graham, Carson City District Attorney's Office stated his office has reviewed the amendments to S.B. 114 and are in agreement to the same. Mr. Carpenter wanted to assure S.B. 114 would cover the time frame after a divorce action or child custody situation has concluded. Recalling previous testimony in these instances, Mr. Carpenter stated oftentimes it is after the divorce when these types of actions occur. Mr. Graham reminded Mr. Carpenter S.B. 114 with the proposed amendments would not cover any time after the divorce decree has been entered; however, the individual would still be able to seek relief under the current stalking laws regardless of there being no pendency of litigation. It is during the pendency of the action that the incidents have proved to be most heated. Chairman Humke stated his recollection of previous testimony from Valerie Cooney making reference to Supreme Court Rule 60 may arguably address the pendency of an action which extends the time to six months on property issues. Mr. Graham agreed an amendment along those lines could be included "during the pendency of these matters or until the appeal period has expired." Chairman Humke also confirmed a child custody case can be re-opened at any time during the minority of a child so S.B. 114 would apply to those situations as well. Mr. Carpenter vehemently expressed his desire to include an amendment to S.B. 114 providing for an extension of time after the divorce or custody proceeding is concluded. Mr. Anderson stated he would like to move the bill through since it was not especially easy to reach a compromise on the bill so an additional six months after the conclusion of the proceeding would be fine with him. Further discussion was held between Mr. Anderson, Chairman Humke, and Mr. Carpenter. Specifically, the discussion involved tolling of the statute regarding the period of time after a divorce or custody proceeding has concluded. Chairman Humke posed a hypothetical custody situation which would allow S.B. 114 to be revisited at that time. Chairman Humke stated his reservations with S.B. 114 as pertains to the divorce and custody provisions but, understanding a compromise has been made, he will not vote against the bill since there may not be a better way to deal with it. Also, there may not be much prosecution under the existing stalking statutes. ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON MOVED FOR A MOTION TO AMEND & DO PASS S.B. 114. ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION. Valerie Cooney, President, Nevada Trial Lawyers, stated she has reviewed the committee's proposed amendments and they would be in agreement thereto. She indicated there may be a slight abuse of the statute if S.B. 114 were to pass. Mr. Perkins stated his only concern with S.B. 114 was there was a net of people it did not cover--those being indigent individuals who are not involved in custody or divorce litigation simply because they cannot afford it and perhaps they are not married. He does not believe these persons should be excluded but will support the bill to help it proceed. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairman Humke asked Mr. Anderson to present S.B. 114 on the floor. * * * * * ASSEMBLY BILL 133 - Makes various changes to provisions governing regulation of gaming. Mr. Neilander outlined the amendment proposed by William Bible, Chairman of the Gaming Control Board, during his initial testimony. Further, the paragraph on page three from the proposed amendments would be deleted. The proposed amendments are included herein as (Exhibit C). Chairman Humke advised A.B. 133 was placed in a subcommittee on March 21, 1995 and that subcommittee has not met. Further, the record should reflect the subcommittee members agreed to process A.B. 133 today. Ms. Monaghan questioned if the small counties chose not to do the work permit, would there be any assistance from the state? Mr. Neilander answered the existing law requires the state to oversee all the work permit procedures. Each county has the flexibility but the ultimate responsibility lies with the Gaming Control Board. Mr. Neilander also explained the "sunset clause" in relation to work permits. Ms. Buckley pointed out there appeared to be a discrepancy on the effective date in the text of the repealed sections of the statute. Mr. Neilander explained the bill drafting methods which set forth those effective dates. ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO AMEND & DO PASS A.B. 133. ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairman Humke asked Ms. Steel to present A.B. 133 on the floor. ASSEMBLY BILL 95 - Requires finding that juvenile was driving under influence of intoxicating liquor or controlled substance to be included in his driver's record for certain period. Mr. Sandoval, Chairman of the subcommittee for A.B. 95, expressed the concerns of the subcommittee being they wanted to avoid the sealing of the juvenile's record for purposes of enhanced penalties if there were a second DUI but not to hinder the juvenile's opportunity for employment. Further, Mr. Sandoval informed the committee he just received word of some problems with the bill in relation to proposed legislation and existing statutes concerning juveniles. Mr. Neilander, Research Staff, advised the committee of the discrepancies in existing juvenile statutes and A.B. 95. The current statutes discussed are attached hereto as (Exhibit D). Mr. Neilander explained he was clarifying these statutes in conjunction with A.B. 95 so he could obtain the intent of the committee in order to draft the proper amendments. The main discrepancy comes to play if the amendment were to not require the juvenile to respond to a question about his driving record for employment purposes but in actuality the driving record is public record so the employer could find out about it at some time. Mr. Sandoval drew attention to proposed legislation which provides the Department of Motor Vehicles to provide certain driving record information to various entities. If that bill were to pass it would address the concerns in A.B. 95. Ms. Buckley stated the subcommittee discussed the intent of A.B. 95 with the proponent, MADD. MADD wants to be tougher on juvenile offenders if they commit a second offense. The compromise discussed was the first offense would remain on the juvenile's record for seven years and would be reportable to insurance companies but otherwise it would remain sealed unless the individual committed a second offense then the enhanced penalties would apply. Understanding the statutes presented by Mr. Neilander posed a problem with the subcommittee's amendment to A.B. 95, Ms. Buckley suggested the statutes (Exhibit D) be amended to reference what A.B. 95 is trying to accomplish. Mr. Goldwater wondered if a juvenile answered on an application for employment under the penalty of perjury "no" regarding their driving record would they be charged with anything. Mr. Neilander directed the committee to NRS 453.4363(3) in response to the inquiry. Mr. Neilander further explained there are two separate and distinct differences in this bill. One, is the driving record confidential? Which is separate from is the registration information confidential? They are two separate records. Ms. Monaghan stated she would not support A.B. 95. Ms. Steel inquired about the effect of A.B. 95 with the insurance industries, and perhaps a "hold harmless" clause for the custodian of records in providing the driving records. Ms. Ohrenschall inquired about the cost factor of DMV providing these records. Mr. Batten pointed out Assembly Bill 187 is the other bill which may affect A.B. 95 regarding the confidentiality of these records. Chairman Humke placed A.B. 95 back into subcommittee. Mr. Carpenter advised the committee a juvenile judge from Elko who has very definite ideas about what is being done with juveniles, will be at the Legislature on Wednesday, March 29, 1995. The committee may want to consult him for his comments. Chairman Humke also informed the committee the Governor's bill, A.B. 317, addresses items involving juveniles as well and the confidentiality of records. No further business coming before the committee, the meeting adjourned at 9:28 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Joi Davis, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman Assemblyman David E. Humke, Chairman Assembly Committee on Judiciary March 24, 1995 Page