MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Sixty-eighth Session May 15, 1995 The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 8:05 a.m., on Monday, May 15, 1995, Chairman Humke 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 Mrs. Jan Monaghan Ms. Genie Ohrenschall Mr. Richard Perkins Mr. Michael A. (Mike) Schneider Ms. Dianne Steel Ms. Jeannine Stroth COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED: Mr. Mark Manendo GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblyman Douglas Bache STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Dennis Neilander, Research Analyst Joi Davis, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Lieutenant Phil Galeoto, Reno Police Department Janice Ayres, Retired Senior Volunteer Program Ben Graham, Clark County District Attorney's Office ASSEMBLY BILL 1 - Requires district attorney to include count of habitual criminality if defendant has sufficient convictions. Chairman Humke announced that Assemblyman Marvel, the primary sponsor of A.B. 1, was testifying in Ways and Means presently so he would be unable to present testimony on this bill. This bill was heard on January 31, 1995 and additionally this date. Chairman Humke stated his notes reflected a subcommittee was appointed to A.B. 1; however, the co-chairman agreed to confirm that with Dennis Neilander, Senior Research Analyst, before proceeding further. ASSEMBLY BILL 201 - Requires date for first hearing to consider release of offender on parole to be set when offender is sentenced to crime. Jeannine Stroth, Assembly District 5, primary sponsor of A.B. 201, testified the bill appropriately coincides with the truth-in-sentencing bill, Senate Bill 416, which this committee will be considering. She stated S.B. 416 requires minimum and maximum terms to be served. Therefore, A.B. 201 asks, at the time of sentencing, for the judge to inform the victim and the victims' family of the minimum sentence at which the first time the offender would be eligible for parole. Chairman Humke asked if A.B. 201 would survive if S.B. 416 passes. Ms. Stroth stated she has not completely reviewed S.B. 416 so would defer response in that regard to Dennis Neilander, Senior Research Analyst. She stated her bill was proposed before S.B. 416 and further A.B. 201 was brought at the request of a victims agency in Clark County solely to benefit victims of crime. Mr. Anderson stated his notes indicate there was a concern about the effective date of the bill in terms of procedure for the parole and probation departments. Ms. Stroth stated the effective dates for A.B. 201 would be contingent on dates imposed in the S.B. 416. Therefore, A.B. 201 may have to wait to be processed after S.B. 416. Ms. Steel informed the committee, upon her perusal of S.B. 416, there are no provisions contained therein regarding NRS Chapter 176 which is part of A.B. 201 so the committee could proceed with the bill. In addition, Section 213 of S.B. 416 does not seem to cover what is in A.B. 201 so it would appear the committee could move forward to process A.B. 201. Chairman Humke asked Mr. Neilander to comment on whether all the provisions of A.B. 201 are contained in S.B. 416. Mr. Neilander stated S.B. 416 tries to do something similar to A.B. 201 but it is not contained in the same Section and he would need to compare the two areas before commenting on the differences. Chairman Humke stated the policy of the co-chairmen would be to keep A.B. 201 and other bills dealing with like subject matter into memory to see if there is any duplication with S.B. 416. Also, if a particular bill states a certain subject matter better than S.B. 416, then they may process the individual bill separately. Ms. Stroth concluded her thoughts were the committee would need to look closely at S.B. 416 and if it contains everything that is in A.B. 201 then it would be fine with her to proceed with S.B. 416 rather than her bill as it was not her intent to have a number of bills passed into legislation this session under her name. ASSEMBLY BILL 339 - Revises provisions governing good time credits and eligibility for parole for certain offenders. Assemblyman Douglas Bache, District 11, stated A.B. 339 deals with repeat offenders in the state of Nevada. Mr. Bache declared Sections 2 and 3 of the bill involve the issue of good time credits for repeat offenders. Sections 5 and 7 contains the current language on good time credits which applies to Sections 2 and 3. Mr. Bache further outlined Sections 2 and 3. Section 9 of A.B. 339 provides if you are a repeat offender in the prison system for the second time, instead of serving one-third of your sentence, you must serve one-half of the sentence before being eligible for parole. He added there is another section in the bill wherein if you are a two-time offender you would not be entitled to parole. Mr. Bache concluded that was the essence of the bill. Also, A.B. 339 attempts to deal with the violent repeat offender without presenting an extreme fiscal note with it. Ms. Steel asked since he was taking away their credits for schooling for the third time around, what if they did not take the schooling opportunity during the first two times they were incarcerated. She asked if it would be better perhaps if they could opt to take the schooling in lieu of the good time credits, but not both. Mr. Bache responded his feelings were that they have the opportunity the first time they are in prison to obtain good time credits, including educational programs. The second time they are in prison their schooling possibilities are cut in half. So if they are in there a third time, Mr. Bache did not feel they should be able to earn credits for schooling. They have twice been in the prison system. Upon Chairman Humke's inquiry, Mr. Bache stated he had not compared A.B. 339 to other truth-in-sentencing bills, specifically S.B. 416, adding he trusts the wisdom of the committee to proceed appropriately. ASSEMBLY BILL 442 - Makes various changes related to crimes, juvenile courts, sentencing and victims of crime. Chairman Humke announced Assemblyman Marvel has entrusted A.B. 442 to the committee since he is involved in the Governor's crime package, A.B. 317 currently in Ways and Means. Mr. Anderson commented A.B. 442 has a relatively high threshold of incarceration whereby A.B. 339 had a 50% threshold and A.B. 442 requires 85% of the sentence served. Mr. Anderson concluded the bill may pose some additional burdens on the state by mandating an 85% incarceration threshold. However, he understands the intent of the bill and believes it deserves complete consideration along with the other measures of truth-in-sentencing before the committee. Mr. Sandoval, speaking on behalf of Assemblyman Marvel stated it was his intent to bring the truth-in-sentencing concept to the table for discussion stages and he was not wedded to the 85% threshold. Chairman Humke announced it was his understanding that A.B. 442 was brought forth as a result of early conversations between Assemblyman Marvel and Judge Gamble of Douglas County regarding efforts at reform of both the juvenile and the adult correction systems. ASSEMBLY BILL 570 - Revises provisions regarding habitual criminals. Assemblywoman Genie Ohrenschall, District 12, stated A.B. 570 provides that a person convicted for the third time of defrauding a senior citizen or a mentally disabled person would be sentenced as a habitual criminal. The individual would be required to serve no less than 20 years in prison with no reduction of the sentencing being possible. Ms. Ohrenschall noted the emphasis this year has been on violent crimes; however, fraud is a crime of latent violence. Defrauding an elderly person or mentally impaired person can result in a ruined life to which the individual may never recover. Ms. Ohrenschall declared A.B. 570 came from the seniors in her district wherein there have been many schemes aimed at seniors urging them to invest their life savings. Chairman Humke asked if most fraud schemes occur through face-to-face relationships or telemarketing, etc. Ms. Ohrenschall stated originally the schemes were strictly face-to-face but has advanced to the sophistication of television ads and telemarketing networks. Chairman Humke announced, through his service on another committee, he heard testimony that there was a desire to reduce the size of the staff of the telemarketing fraud unit of the Attorney General's Office and the Consumer Affairs Department because they have been successful in their efforts to curb these schemes. Ms. Ohrenschall replied she has reviewed A.B. 570 with Dave Sarnowski, Deputy Attorney General, who assured her it is a bill they can live with but that he would be out of town today and unable to testify. She added Mr. Sarnowski made two suggestions to A.B. 570: 1) in order to make the bill parallel with other statutes, at line 10, page 1, after "not less than 20 years" add "and not more than life with the possibility of parole; and 2) each location of the bill where it states "district attorney" he suggested it read "prosecuting attorney". Ms. Ohrenschall stated she concurs with these suggestions. Ms. Steel recalled previous discussions on this subject matter which dealt with reduction of the sentence if the perpetrator reimbursed the fraud. She wondered why such provisions were not set forth in A.B. 570. Ms. Ohrenschall responded she agreed that was an important aspect to the bill in making the senior citizen whole again; however, the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), after extensive research, informed her there was case law which could be interpreted as violating equal protection between a wealthy defrauder and a poor defrauder. Ms. Ohrenschall stated the original draft of the bill allowed if the perpetrator made 100% restitution prior to the time of sentencing, the habitual provision could toll. However, LCB informed her otherwise. Janice Ayres, Executive Director, Retired Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP) for 15 rural counties in Nevada, stated many seniors are taken advantage of. In addition, with the increased rate of seniors moving into Nevada, A.B. 570 could go a long way in assisting this large portion of Nevada's population. Ms. Ayres stated she would like to see a better definition of senior citizen as every program she sees differs in the age of eligibility for seniors at the federal, state, and local levels. Ms. Ayres declared the definition of senior citizen in A.B. 570 should be 60 years of age or older. Ms. Ayres stated she sits on the Attorney General's Task Force on Telemarketing and not all telemarketing is bad. However, she stated safeguards should be set forth with regards to telemarketing and perhaps current legislation will address that. Ms. Ayres encouraged the committee to seriously consider A.B. 570 and urged passage of the same adding that public education was necessary for seniors to understand their rights. Chairman Humke asked Ms. Ayres her thoughts on the definition of the mentally disabled person set forth in Section 2, subsection 3 of the bill. Ms. Ayres remarked those definitions were good except for (d) which may pose some problems. Lieutenant Phil Galeoto, Reno Police Department, stated he supports A.B. 570 and feels this legislation is about 15 years overdue. Mr. Galeoto went on to describe particular mortgage fraud situations occurring in Reno in the late 70's and early 80's to which he was the primary investigator in each of those cases. He stated a significant portion of the victims in the hundreds of cases he investigated were elderly people. He saw many seniors lose everything they had. Mr. Galeoto expounded on how the perpetrators in the two particular mortgage fraud scams he investigated preyed on their victims and urged the passage of A.B. 570. Upon Mrs. Monaghan's inquiry, Mr. Galeoto stated he felt Section 2 (3)(d) was a good item to have in the statute because there are times when individuals are very vulnerable and government has a tendency not to look at that area. Mr. Galeoto expounded some of these areas would be seen in the Oklahoma City bombing or the Los Angeles earthquake wherein you will see funeral/burial scams, etc. Ms. Stroth asked, with regard to Section 2(3)(b), if "catastrophic illness" could be replaced with "catastrophic event." Chairman Humke, Mr. Anderson, and Mr. Galeoto agreed that was a good suggestion. Upon Mr. Anderson's inquiry, Mr. Galeoto agreed the passing of A.B. 570 would provide a stronger tool for district attorneys prosecuting these type of cases and additionally, it goes a step further by identifying a certain type of victim. Ms. Ohrenschall concurred "event" instead of "illness" was acceptable and further agreed with changing the age of 65 to 60 years pertinent in the bill. Ben Graham, Clark County District Attorney's Office stated A.B. 570 properly blends with the other habitual criminal legislation this session, specifically A.B. 317 and S.B. 416. However, the fraud consideration in A.B. 570 would be best suited by enhancing the penalty earlier on for victims over age 65 rather than making it habitual all the way across. He added there are currently laws imposing enhanced penalties for crimes against persons over age 65 but not specifically addressing fraud so perhaps A.B. 570 should proceed on its own. Mr. Graham concluded the sponsor of A.B. 570 may want to hold the bill for a short while to make sure A.B. 317 and S.B. 416 move through. Chairman Humke advised the bills on the agenda today dealt with subject matter largely contained in other major bills. However, A.B. 570 was an exception because it was expedited due to a misconception in other legislation. Mr. Graham added the mandatory filing of any habitual criminal statute concerns the district attorneys group because of the difficulty in proving the charges, especially in fraud situations. Upon Chairman Humke's request, Mr. Neilander explained and commented on the cross-over and overlapping of A.B. 317 and S.B. 416 as relates to other bills the committee will be hearing dealing with similar subject matter. Mr. Neilander stated he will be monitoring A.B. 317 currently in Ways and Means to keep the committee informed as it may impact the consistency of the committee on various other bills. Mr. Neilander informed the committee further in this area of discussion. Upon Mr. Carpenter's inquiry, Mr. Humke relayed Senator James has prepared a matrix or chart to S.B. 416 which will assist the committee in proceeding through that bill as they begin to hear testimony on Wednesday, May 17, 1995. There being no further business before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 9:20 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Joi Davis, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman Assemblyman David E. Humke, Chairman Assembly Committee on Judiciary May 15, 1995 Page