MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Sixty-eighth Session May 18, 1995 The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 8:10 a.m., on Thursday, May 18, 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. 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 COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED: Mr. Thomas Batten GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Senator Mark James STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Dennis Neilander, Research Analyst Joi Davis, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Bayer, Director, Department of Prisons Robin Bates, Classification & Planning Division, Department of Prisons Glen Whorton, Department of Prisons Richard Wyett, Parole & Probation Carlos Concha, Parole & Probation Dorothy North, Governor's Drug Commission Judy Jacoboni, Chapter President, Mothers Against Drunk Driving Phil Galeoto, Lieutenant, Reno Police Department Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens SENATE BILL 416 (FIRST REPRINT) - Makes various changes regarding sentencing of persons convicted of felonies. Chairman Anderson announced the committee would continue testimony from Senator James carried over from yesterday's hearing on S.B. 416. Additionally, Chairman Anderson stated he received in the mail a report from the NCSL on truth- in-sentencing systems and had a question after reviewing that document which pertains directly to S.B. 416. Chairman Anderson asked if Senator James, when making the comparison of current sentencing practices containing minimum eligibility with a one to six year sentencing, did he use the expectation that the individual in prison would take advantage of every reduction program available to them? Senator James deferred response of the question to Bob Bayer, Director of Prisons. Mr. Bayer stated the comparison was done on an average and did not take into account the maximum that could be earned if credit was obtained by an inmate. Upon Chairman Anderson's inquiry, Senator James stated a judge could not elevate an offender's crime category from a "C" level to a "B" level--referring to the handout provided to the committee and set forth as (Exhibit C) to the minutes dated May 17, 1995. Further, Senator James stated a judge would not be bound by a plea agreement; yet, by the same token, a judge cannot have an offender plead guilty to a different crime. In clarifying, Senator James added the prosecution has discretion on what crime is charged and the court is guided and limited by the statutory boundaries in issuing a sentence. Chairman Anderson asked Senator James, with regard to restitution provisions throughout the bill, how did he determine which crimes would have the ability of restitution attached to them. Senator James responded the judge has the discretion to order victim restitution for any crime under current law. S.B. 416 just goes a step further in requiring restitution be a part of the sentence for particular crimes, such as fraud, etc. However, the judge can still order restitution for other crimes as well. Chairman Anderson pointed out that oftentimes truth-in-sentencing programs eliminate existing parole systems. Senator James stated the parole systems would absolutely not be eliminated by the passage of S.B. 416. In fact, his research and discussions with judiciary chairmen from other states indicates elimination of parole boards was disastrous. Lastly, Chairman Anderson inquired into the sections involving the issuance of surety bonds commencing on page 80 of the bill. Specifically, he asked what would happen if someone was unable to meet the bail bond requirement for surety, does that make them ineligible to go into a parole program? Senator James stated the surety bonds are at the option of the judge to remain consistent with the philosophy of the bill regarding category "C", "D", and "E" felonies, trying to divert non-violent individuals out of the prison system to make medium and maximum security space available for violent, repeat offenders. Senator James declared the surety bonds basically provide an additional option for judges and he sees them being used most often in crime category "E". Ms. Buckley expressed her concerns pertaining to the sections regarding surety bonds and the need for use of experts and monitoring of reliability of tests. In addition, she asked Senator James if he knew how other states were handling this type of penalty and has he discussed this issue with anyone in the community willing to enter this field? Senator James stated he has not spoken with any private companies who have indicated they are willing to undertake that business. However, he advised that Section 200 gives the sureties some "outs" if you continue on with the bill. He agreed that some means would need to be set out in the bill to insure the programs are responsible and he would strongly advocate allowing the private sector to become involved when it can to perform efficiently. Upon Ms. Buckley's further comments regarding surety bonds, Senator James reiterated the surety bond provision in S.B. 416 is optional to the judge; however, the diversion to probation for category "D" and "E" felony attempt is not optional but rather mandatory. In that regard, the current probation department will be utilized and he has been assured they have the resources capable to accomplish the tasks required in S.B. 416. Mr. Carpenter asked if life without the possibility of parole will mean life without the possibility of parole. Senator James answered affirmatively. Senator James elaborated further that when someone commits a murder now they do not believe they will truly be incarcerated for life and they know they will not get the death penalty unless they ask for it. The power of setting forth that life without the possibility of parole means just that is the deterrent needed throughout the system. Under S.B. 416 that sentence could not be commuted by the pardon's board. Mr. Carpenter assumed the 40% rule regarding the minimum term of sentence served was based on a fiscal impact and asked if there would be a large fiscal increase if the 40% rule was increased to 50%. Senator James responded it would be a substantial impact; however, the 40% rule is not proposed solely as a fiscal concern. Senator James added the 40% rule was to effectuate the philosophy of the bill. He stated parole and good time credits are important modification elements necessary to the penal system. However, the 40% rule is necessary to keep the minimum low enough in relationship to the maximum yet the problem of an inmate being able to flatten out the top of their sentence is addressed as well. Secondly, the 40% rule is necessary to maintain control on judicial discretion as to how much of a minimum can be given within a certain term. Further, Senator James stated they went through all the different crimes, specifically violent crimes, to confirm the sentence range was broad enough that the judge would be able to sentence someone to a high enough minimum under the 40% rule to effectuate the intent of keeping these offenders in prison longer. Mr. Sandoval asked if the structure in, for instance, category "B" felony (4-10 years), maintains the present system of good time credits. Senator James answered nothing can reduce the minimum time served. Mr. Sandoval asked, if at the time someone completes the minimum, say four years, are they then immediately eligible for parole if they have been a good prisoner in every possible way? Senator James stated no not in most cases. Mr. Bayer, Director of Prisons, interjected if the minimum sentence has been served they would then be eligible for parole but no sooner. Mr. Bayer explained If the inmate has good time credits, those credits would apply to when the term expires. However, the inmate would be eligible to appear before the parole board at the four year minimum time. Mr. Bayer confirmed that the 4-year term could not be expired before the parole board hearing based on good time credits. Further discussion was held regarding the expiration of sentences based on good time credits. Robin Bates, Chief of Classification of Planning, Department of Prisons and Glen Whorton, Department of Prisons came forward to clear up the debate regarding good time credits being utilized to expire a sentence and when an inmate would become eligible for parole. Mr. Sandoval restated the question "If a person is convicted of a category "B" felony and the judge imposes a 4-10 year sentence on that individual, that person will serve a flat four years. How would the present good time credit system affect the 4-10 sentence if the inmate does everything they can do." Senator James stated under the average, as shown in the handouts provided to the committee, contained as (Exhibit C) to the minutes of May 17, 1995, there would be a two year tail on a 4-10 sentence, meaning the inmate would probably serve approximately six years. Robin Bates added, with the assistance of Glen Whorton at the chalkboard, parole would come into play at four years. Discharge then would be reduced by good time credits. So, in talking about the 4-10 year range, Mr. Bates proposed the following: An inmate incarcerated can earn 10 days per month for good behavior credits, 10 days per month for work totaling 20 days per month. Taking a 10 year sentence--10 x 365 days = 3,650 days divided by 1.667 as the reducer which comes to 2,189 days equaling 5.9 years. So under optimum conditions, someone incarcerated in an institution could discharge a 10 year sentence six years and no sooner. An inmate in a conservation camp can earn 20 days per month for work and 10 days for good behavior. Taking 3,650 days divided by 2.0 as the reducer which comes to 1,825 days, converted to 5 years. Mr. Bates stated the above scenario was not likely to happen in every case because that would involve an inmate who earns his credits every month. However, in reality that does not happen because inmates get sick and cannot work or their behavior is such that good time credits are taken away. Further discussion ensued regarding the use of good time credits. Mr. Goldwater asked if the Department of Prisons has the resources currently available to handle the change in prison culture that will be affected by the passage of S.B. 416. Senator James stated he believed so in that the prison system is very secure and at least two of the prisons in Nevada operate under two court decrees. Upon Mr. Anderson's inquiry, Senator James stated the bill takes into consideration the normal growth pattern in Nevada and the growth the prison systems are likely to experience for at least the next two years, approximately March, 1997. Upon Ms. Buckley's request, Senator James explained two charts presented in hand-out material (Exhibit C) to May 17, 1995 Minutes of Committee on Judiciary. Chairman Anderson commended Senator James for all his efforts and diligence in bringing such a complete document and solid piece of legislation as S.B. 416. Senator James thanked Chairman Anderson adding S.B. 416 could not have been accomplished without the assistance of the entire Judiciary Committee as it has been a joint effort. The early discussions held between the Senate and Assembly Judiciary Committees concerned dividing the criminal justice reform between the two houses. That cooperative effort was the only way such large legislation could have possibly been managed and he appreciates all the effort and assistance he has received from the chairmen and the committee in that regard. Bob Bayer, Director, Department of Prisons, and his staff, Robin Bates, Classification & Planning Division, and Glen Whorton, came forward to testify on S.B. 416. Mr. Bayer stated they were present today merely to respond to questions the committee may have regarding sentence credits being computed and impact on sentence computation. In addition, he was present to testify on the impact S.B. 416 would have upon residential confinement expansion. Chairman Anderson asked if Mr. Bayer would be providing his explanation of the 40% rule. Mr. Bayer stated the 40% rule came about during the initial drafting phase of S.B. 416 after reviewing the minimum sentence structures proposed and realizing they would not function properly without changing the laws surrounding sentence credit reduction. Mr. Bayer surmised the 40% rule is strictly a mathematical structure designed to assist the judge to insure the problem of "flattening" the sentence before the minimum parole eligibility had been met. Further discussion was held between Mr. Carpenter and Mr. Bayer regarding the 40% rule in S.B. 416 in comparison to the current sentencing statutes. Mr. Bayer added S.B. 416 and the 40% rule therein provides a good amount of flexibility for the judge. Mr. Bayer stated the bottom number in the range represents the earliest parole eligibility date that can be set by the judge. Mr. Goldwater asked if Nevada's prisons have the capacity, as we change the culture of prison, to handle the prisoners and deal with the hardening of the population and assure the conditions in prison do not deteriorate to an inhumane level and possibly present an "Attica" situation. Mr. Bayer responded the question was very complex. Further, the Department of Prisons is still in the process of completing an impact study in terms of what will happen to custody levels. He added the beds are allocated in a certain ratio and the density of inmates will increase. Therefore, the beds available in minimum and/or maximum facilities have to be accessed. Mr. Bayer commented the "hardening" of the prison population will have to be addressed at the next session. Mr. Goldwater stated he needed to be certain prior to voting for S.B. 416 this session that he would not be responsible for passing a bill that resulted in the death of prison guards due to inadequate situations, etc. Unless he can get the answer to his question, Mr. Goldwater stated he could not vote for the bill. Mr. Bayer stated he would be answering a subjective question. However, in attempting to respond to Mr. Goldwater, Mr. Bayer answered 1) the public is clear that they want tougher sentencing; and 2) he anticipates the institutions will have to deal with more difficult inmates so in the future additional resources will be necessary to do that effectively. Mr. Bayer stated a rise in violence in the prisons is seen when you do not have enough single cells and some control is lost at that point. Chairman Anderson noted prison guards are always at risk as it is an at-risk type of job. In responding to Mr. Goldwater's earlier question, Mr. Bates stated as the effects of S.B. 416 materialize over time, the prisons' budget will reflect the needs created by the bill. A capital improvement program for the next biennium if S.B. 416 passes, will have to be modified and there will most likely be a request for additional beds beginning in 1998. Also, the legislature will probably see modifications in their construction requests and staff requests to accommodate the new prison population. Mr. Bates stated the "weak" inmate situation will be less prevalent in S.B. 416 because those inmates will be diverted to alternative programs in fairly large numbers and the prisons will be selectively utilized for the high-end offenders. Mr. Goldwater declared the fiscal notes do not reflect the comments made by Mr. Bates. Mr. Bayer explained the fiscal notes are not reflective of these concerns because the study on custody levels has not been completed. Further, he stressed it would be premature to state their capital improvement request will need to be modified since they need to look into where the custody levels are and take into consideration the building scheduled for Lovelock Phase II. Mr. Bayer concluded he is not certain as yet whether they will be modifying their fiscal request and that is why the fiscal note is foot-noted as such. Ms. Buckley asked how many persons do they see diverted to residential confinement based on the categories "D" and "E" and how that compares to the long-range plans? Mr. Bates approximated the figure would be somewhere in the 25% range however since the study is incomplete, 25% is just a guesstimate. Additional discussion was held regarding the definition of residential confinement. Ms. Buckley wanted to know how many individuals would be going into straight probation and how many would be going into residential confinement. Mr. Bayer informed Ms. Buckley they could provide her with more specific statistics at a later time. Ms. Buckley asked for further clarification on how comparisons between bed spaces availability and longer prison sentences, and the diversion of inmates out of the institution was reached by the Department of Prisons. Mr. Bayer referred her to the projection prepared by the NCCDD in March, 1995, as provided in the handout of (Exhibit C) to the May 17, 1995 minutes. In that chart, they analyzed the sentence then withdrew certain percentages from each of the categories, and then you come up with a new projection. Mr. Bates added in the fiscal year (FY) 1996, there will be an average of nine fewer inmates because of probation diversions with a peak of 38 fewer inmates at June, 1996. In FY97 there will be an average of 66 fewer inmates in prison with a peak of 89 in December, 1997. These individuals, if the 1995 legislation passes, are considered those in minimum custody. Chairman Anderson asked if there were funds for the diversion programs to insure their success and insure those individuals will not be finding their way back into the prisons. Mr. Bayer stated he was not in the position of predicting what the budget division does for another agency. However, that is why he so strongly supports the LifeSkills and other such programs. Mr. Sandoval asked if there might be a shifting of resources from the minimum facility to the medium and maximum facility. Mr. Bayer stated they do not know what the judges are going to do as far as sentencing. Also, the sentences are being changed so they are still studying all factors involved in the process. Mr. Bayer remarked minimum security will be affected. With the 25% diversion predicted, Mr. Bayer declared the staffing pattern would remain unchanged so the effect, if any, will be small. Chairman Anderson announced a break at 9:40 a.m. and the committee reconvened as a subcommittee at 10:05 a.m. Chairman Anderson recognized persons present today who had signed up to testify on S.B. 416 yesterday. Lieutenant Phil Galeoto, Reno Police Department, stated the testimony of the undersheriff from Clark County and the Washoe County District Attorney, Richard Gammick, yesterday, sums up his feelings on S.B. 416, and therefore he supports the passage of this legislation. Mr. Galeoto commented with regard to the category "E" felonies he initially was concerned that he would be telling his officers there were a category of crimes out there wherein offenders would never have to go to prison. However, having read through the bill entirely and hearing all the testimony, he supports the concept because it does provide a balance in putting the most violent offenders in prison while at the same time allowing a chance to those non-violent offenders having committed lesser felonies, a chance to improve themselves. Therefore, the category "E" felony group is a fair and effective trade-off. Mr. Galeoto stated S.B. 416 also adequately addresses what he sees as the worst crimes--those affecting children. Mr. Galeoto expounded the crime of burglary is the most serious crime affecting America today yet it is the most ignored crime. There is so much burglary but they are able to solve so little. Across the United States, only 10% of burglary crimes are ever solved. He asked the committee to take a hard look at the statutes involving burglary crimes when considering S.B. 416. Mr. Galeoto concluded another aspect of S.B. 416 he strongly supports is the minimum sentencing requirements. Mr. Carpenter noted S.B. 416 actually reduces the sentencing framework for some of the crimes against children and asked Mr. Galeoto to comment. Mr. Galeoto stated through the testimony he has heard on the bill, there is no lessening of time served because they will actually do more time based on the sentencing curve the judge can order. Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens, stated they strongly support S.B. 416 as it restores the public confidence in the criminal justice system by requiring the judge to set forth the minimum and maximum at the time of sentencing in front of God, the victims, and everyone. They also like the restitution provisions of the bill. Ms. Lusk acknowledged the hard work put into the bill. Ms. Lusk identified an area in the bill which appears to be in opposition to the concept of truth-in-sentencing. Specifically, on page 87 of S.B. 416, beginning on line 35, if the probationer has violated a condition of his probation the court can reduce the sentence. They feel this rewards the criminal for continuing to show a lack of respect for the law by violating his probation. Ms. Lusk acknowledged the committee addressed this same language in Assembly Bill 317 and made some modifications thereto; however, they would like to see the provision deleted entirely. In the alternative, perhaps they could amend the language to show a modification of sentence could only take place in the maximum and not in the minimum provided by the judge. In addition, if the provision must remain in the bill, she urged the committee to add a provision allowing for the notification of the victim and allowing comments to be received by the judge before a reduction of sentence can take place. Ms. Lusk commented on earlier discussions of the "hardening" of the prison population. Having them in prison with trained guards is going to provide far less deaths in that regard. Ms. Steel and Mr. Anderson recalled earlier testimony on A.B. 317 regarding Ms. Lusk's area of concern on page 87 of S.B. 416. Dorothy North, Chairman, Governor's Commission on Substance Abuse, Education, Prevention, Enforcement & Treatment commended Senator James and the entire legislature for taking such a major shift in public policy as it [truth-in-sentencing] has been needed for a long time. Ms. North continued her concern is how S.B. 416 will actually work as the system is currently inadequate to take the persons eligible for diversion programs. At present, there are 1,700 people on a waiting list trying to access treatment in the publicly-funded treatment system. The majority of those persons are on probation or parole and they need supervision and treatment. She stated their programs are an integral part of the system in keeping people off alcohol and drugs which ultimately leads to less property crimes being committed. Ms. North declared they are active with the money committees to obtain funds into the system so if S.B. 416 passes, it will actually work, along with LifeSkills working successfully. Ms. North remarked by the year 2000, due to recent legislation, California will be spending more on prisons than they spend on higher education. However, Nevada can be different provided there are adequate systems in the community and adequate funds applied to those systems. Ms. North expressed her dissatisfaction in Assembly Bill 90 not passing because it would have provided 100% funding to the criminal justice system diversion programs. Ms. North urged the committee to discuss this issue with members of the money committees to assure the success of S.B. 416 and other related bills. Ms. Steel asked if Ms. North had any other suggestions besides discussing the matter with members of the money committee. Ms. North stated the money needs to be taken out of the General Fund or some other budget and place it into the publicly-funded treatment system through the Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse. Chairman Anderson declared the A.C.R. 71 Study Committee reviewed recidivism and the causes being most related to drug and alcoholism. The major difference with the repeat offender was the type of crime he was arrested for the second time was a higher status thus resulting in a longer sentence. Whereas, if that same individual had the availability of a treatment program as a diversion in sentencing if he became a repeat offender it would be a lower status offense. Mr. Manendo agreed with Chairman Anderson regarding the need for funds for diversion programs and wondered why the funds were not originally considered in the budget. Ms. North stated in the budget process there are divisions under departments which prepare the budget and it goes to the department, then to the budget director, and then to the Governor's office. Anywhere along that process, money can be cut out of the budget and that is what happened. It is not that it was not important, it just did not make it all the way through the process. Ms. North concluded by commenting on treatment programs in that it is not an easy process and oftentimes prison life is easier than treatment. Treatment also includes basic living skills to teach the offender how to properly interact with society. Richard Wyett, Chief, Division of Parole and Probation introduced himself and acting Deputy Chief Carlos Concha. Mr. Wyett stated their division supports S.B. 416. He said S.B. 416 will help eliminate the questions we all ask after the release of an inmate who has served only a small portion of their sentence. S.B. 416 also places emphasis on the more violent repeat offender by serving a mandatory sentence and taking into consideration the low end first or second time offender who would benefit from alternatives other than incarceration. Mr. Wyett testified the division of parole and probation would have "little or no difficulty" accommodating the target population addressed in S.B. 416 for diversion alternatives such as LifeSkills or expanded house arrest programs. Mr. Wyett commented he appreciated S.B. 416 because it takes away the element of surprise in sentencing matters because everybody in the system will know what is going on. Mr. Wyett addressed page 81 of S.B. 416, Section 198, stating his division has always dealt with the individual in the area of supervision. However, this section includes the involvement of the whole family and that will be more beneficial to the offender and society in the end. Mr. Wyett concluded the passage of S.B. 416 will require changes in his division by educating parole officers in the areas of sentencing and recommendations. Also, the known offenders will need to be educated that this legislative session was serious in passing these laws and they should know the changes before they commit another offense. Hopefully, this will reduce recidivism. Chairman Anderson asked how a person being released on probation today, under current law, differs from a person being released after the passage of S.B. 416. Mr. Wyett stated back in 1993 frivolous probation violations created a situation causing an overload in the prison systems. This occurred because there were few alternatives to address these matters. However, with S.B. 416, the court, the parole board, and parole and probation, would have other alternatives to consider in lieu of incarceration for probation violation. Further discussion was held regarding the parole and probation's involvement in S.B. 416. Mr. Sandoval asked if the decrease in the recidivism rate would likely bring about a decrease in the crime rate because the more violent criminals are being incarcerated longer. Mr. Wyett stated the decrease in recidivism relates to the non-violent, property offender and the effective utilization of the alternative programs. He agreed the rate of crime should decrease as a result of S.B. 416. Mr. Sandoval inquired if Mr. Wyett's division had the resources to handle the responsibilities set forth in S.B. 416. Mr. Wyett answered affirmatively that they have the resources and the type of officers to effectively see S.B. 416 into reality and they welcome the changes the bill provides. Ms. Buckley commented she was uncertain how they [parole and probation] can perform the expanded requirements set forth in S.B. 416 without more money and more staff. She added although that is not the job of the judiciary committee, she hoped the department would ask for the funds they need to do the very important tasks set forth in the bill. Carlos Concha, Department of Parole and Probation, in response to Ms. Buckley's concerns, stated the budget has appropriated positions for them, specifically under A.B. 317 for the expanded house arrest programs. In addition, they have money allocated for the LifeSkills program. Chairman Anderson informatively commented that A.B. 317 was an anticipated portion of the Governor's budget since it was the Governor's bill. However, S.B. 416 is not a part of the Governor's budget although it is a companion piece of legislation. Chairman Anderson inquired into the funding specifically for the LifeSkills program. Mr. Wyett responded LifeSkills began as a "pilot" program having never been attempted in this country. This pilot program was to begin in Washoe County with a shoestring budget in order to get an idea of what the needs of the program are. Mr. Wyett anticipated they will be coming back to the Legislature for an increase in staff and other areas of the budget. He feels they are able to perform what is needed under A.B. 317 and S.B. 416 within this biennium. Chairman Anderson expressed his frustration in the maintenance and success of the LifeSkills program in that it is the heart and soul of both bills and should be adequately funded rather than funded on a "shoestring" as indicated by Mr. Wyett. Mr. Wyett remarked the LifeSkills program is not just a state funded program but also involves the county and city and some private sector organizations. Those combined entities, he feels, will contribute to the success of the program and remain cost effective with the state. Ms. Steel commented if these programs and their organizers needed money for various programs, they would have asked for it. Judy Jacoboni, Chapter President, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), stated they support S.B. 416 as it goes a long way in restoring the public trust in the goals of sentencing which are incapacitation, deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation. Ms. Jacoboni commended the Assembly Judiciary Committee for their hard work in bringing victims rights groups into A.B. 317 and Senator James and the Senate Judiciary Committee for their hard work in processing S.B. 416. Ms. Jacoboni concluded by echoing Lucille Lusk's concerns regarding the revisiting of sentences by the judge. If that provision is to remain in S.B. 416, they would ask the committee to include victim notification language similar to what the committee amended in A.B. 317. Ms. Jacoboni's prepared statement is attached hereto as (Exhibit C). There being no further testimony before the committee the hearing adjourned at 10:58 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Joi Davis, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman Assemblyman David E. Humke, Chairman Assembly Committee on Judiciary May 18, 1995 Page