MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Sixty-eighth Session June 5, 1995 The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 8:12 a.m., on Monday, June 5, 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 Ms. Dianne Steel Ms. Jeannine Stroth GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Senator Ernest Adler STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Dennis Neilander, Research Analyst Joi Davis, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Richard A. Gammick, District Attorney, Washoe County Roger B. Whomes, Deputy District Attorney, Washoe County Ben Graham, Clark County District Attorneys Association Keith Loomis, Attorney at Law John C. Morrow, Chief Deputy, Washoe County Public Defender Emory L. Crews, private citizen William L. Gardner, Chief Deputy, Reno City Attorney John W. Riggs, Nevada Rifle Association Laurel Stadler, Mothers Against Drunk Driving Phil Galeoto, Lieutenant, Reno Police Department Stan Olsen, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Chairman Anderson began the meeting as a subcommittee. SENATE BILL 335 - Prohibits person from having actual physical possession of firearm while under influence of intoxicating liquor or controlled substance. Senator Ernest Adler, representing the Capital Senatorial District, the primary sponsor of the bill, introduced Keith Loomis, previous district attorney, presently in private practice. Mr. Adler provided a background of S.B. 335 stating he asked Mr. Loomis what type of bill would help the district attorney's offices in prosecuting violent crimes and have a preventive impact. Mr. Loomis indicated if there was a law that would allow an officer to make an arrest for a person in possession of a loaded firearm while intoxicated, charging a simple misdemeanor and removing the firearm, that would eliminate the possible dangerous situation and would combat violent crime without a large fiscal impact. Keith Loomis, stated when he was district attorney there were five murders in Lyon County, three of which were as a result of someone using a firearm while intoxicated. Mr. Loomis stated he believes if the handguns were confiscated, three lives could have been saved. Chairman Anderson announced a quorum was now present at 8:15 a.m. Senator Adler stated currently when a police officer is called in, they make an arrest of brandishing a firearm even if there is no brandishing, simply to alleviate the possibility of a more serious situation. Chairman Anderson noted the specific reference in the first reprint was deleted regarding the misdemeanor fining process and inquired if that was covered in another statute. Senator Adler stated the test for determining intoxication with a firearm is the same as the test administered for driving under the influence (DUI). Upon Chairman Anderson's inquiry, Senator Adler stated S.B. 335 would be treated like a first time DUI no matter how many times it occurred. The intent of S.B. 335 is to diffuse a potentially explosive situation yet does not apply to the other DUI laws. Mr. Sandoval asked how the habitual user would be established in S.B. 335(1)(b). Senator Adler stated the language so referred is out of the DUI statute and essentially that provision would transfer the level of culpability for using drugs or alcohol while using an automobile to possessing a firearm. Senator Adler stated the individual so charged would still have to be under the influence of alcohol to be charged as a habitual providing an example of a bar scene. Mr. Loomis stated S.B. 335 could use one correction as the bill currently states the alcohol testing shall take place pursuant to NRS 484.379, et seq., which refers to the implied consent laws dealing with DUI. Obviously, you do not have to have a driver's license to possess a weapon so the implied consent sanction for refusal to submit to a test would not apply. The language perhaps should be modified to reflect the pattern utilized for second-time DUI or DUI with substantial bodily harm, which allows for the test even upon refusal of implied consent. Senator Adler agreed to the above amendment. Mr. Humke expressed his reservation in utilizing the DUI statutes throughout S.B. 335 for proving the degree of impairment specifically pertaining to Section 1(b). Senator Adler clarified if the weapon was locked in the trunk of the car, prosecution would most likely not occur under S.B. 335. For the purposes of this bill, physical control would mean having the loaded gun on your person or in your hand. Mr. Humke asked how that would apply to the individual in his own home. Senator Adler stated this statute could still apply in that instance especially if there was a police call to the home for domestic violence. Mr. Humke relayed a case scenario wherein such an instance occurred and the parties were not charged but the weapon was confiscated. To date, the weapon has not been returned. Further discussion was held as to whether S.B. 335 will prevent murders. Senator Adler pointed out many states have enacted similar laws to S.B. 335 and stressed physical possession of the firearm must be present. Pursuant to Mr. Humke's reservations, Senator Adler disagreed the firearm would be confiscated indefinitely under this bill and law enforcement would be obligated to return the weapon within three days. Ms. Steel asked, with regard to Section 1(b) the use of "or" would allow for the imposition of penalty even if you are just a habitual and not under the influence. Senator Adler stated that language is from the DUI statutes and has been interpreted already. Mr. Loomis stated he believes that language could be eliminated because it creates a status offense which the Supreme Court has interpreted unconstitutional. Ms. Steel noted .10 blood alcohol level has been determined a dangerous level for driving but has that level been determined a dangerous level for any activity at all, such as hunting. Senator Adler stated as far as he was concerned it was. Ms. Ohrenschall asked if S.B. 335 contemplates any distinction between a loaded or unloaded firearm. Senator Adler stated the bill would not apply to an unloaded firearm. Additionally, Ms. Ohrenschall asked if S.B. 335 would escalate similar to the DUI statutes. Senator Adler replied originally it did but that provision was deleted. Chairman Anderson noted that was an important distinction in light of the fact when a weapon is being brandished about it would be difficult to determine if it is loaded or not. Mr. Loomis stated the arrest would be made with probable cause assuming the weapon was loaded. If it was later discovered to be unloaded, no probable cause would exist and the firearm would be returned. Upon Mrs. Monaghan's inquiry, Mr. Loomis provided the definition between brandishing a weapon and possessing a weapon whereby brandishing is waving the weapon around and possession is having it in a holster, for example. Mr. Emory Crews, private citizen, expressed his desire to see S.B. 335 pass because one year ago his son was murdered. The man that murdered his son tested positive for alcohol and drugs. Mr. Crews stated perhaps this crime could have been prevented if S.B. 335 had been in place at the time. Lieutenant Phil Galeoto, Reno Police Department and Lieutenant Stan Olsen, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department testified in support of S.B. 335. Mr. Olsen clarified earlier concerns of Mr. Humke regarding the confiscation of weapons. He stated in his department when a weapon is taken for "safekeeping" they notify the individual they can retrieve the weapon in three days. He added even if an arrest is not made, the weapon is not destroyed. If the individual does not show up to retrieve the weapon, it is placed in the vault for safekeeping and a registered letter is sent out to the individual. Mr. Olsen supported the concept of the standard of determining intoxication remaining at .10 as it gives them a measuring tool. Phil Galeoto stated their office is also in support of S.B. 335. With regard to the safekeeping of weapons, their office keeps the weapon unless they get a destruction order from the judge. The weapon is returned and is not destroyed. Mr. Galeoto added he would like to see the self defense or the defense of others exception included in S.B. 335 as that would apply to any individual in their home under a burglary type situation. Mr. Galeoto clarified the current law pertaining to brandishing requires the brandishing be in the presence of two or more people so it is not charged often. Therefore, the charge may be to detain someone under civil protective custody unless there is another crime. Mr. Humke agreed with the inclusion of the self defense exception. Mr. Humke asked if intoxication is sometimes used as a defense. Mr. Galeoto stated although it is not allowed as an offense officially, in reality it is utilized as a defense many times. Mr. Galeoto stated the topic of drinking and hunting was not going away. He is totally against drinking and hunting as it involves driving and weapons as well. Mr. Humke stated he would not defend drinking and driving or drinking and hunting. John W. Riggs, Sr., Nevada Rifle Association, stated he came to Nevada to hunt and he is against S.B. 335 as written. Mr. Riggs pointed out S.B. 335 does not address the adversity that may be caused by the passage of the bill. He continued the problem arises when the hunter returns to camp. Typically a hunter will return to camp and put away his rifle but retain his pistol on a holster as an "anti-snake-bite" mechanism. Now the next thing the hunter wants to do is have a couple drinks to ease the day and calm the nerves. Then a game warden may come by and determine the hunter has had too much to drink and is intoxicated. Having a pistol in his holster would now make the hunter subject to the provisions of S.B. 335. Further, Mr. Riggs noted a problem would exist if the game warden does not have the evidentiary testing equipment with him then an arrest would be made and the hunter would have to leave camp and go take a test. Mr. Riggs concluded he agreed with the intent of the bill but this law has no place out in the field of the hunter. Further, the proponent of the bill did not consider any of these adverse effects. Upon Chairman Anderson's inquiry, Mr. Riggs stated he did not have the opportunity to testify on S.B. 335 when it was in the Senate. Mrs. Monaghan stated she did not see any reason why the hunter could not put away their pistol at the same time they put away their rifle. Mr. Riggs reiterated the pistol is only there as a "snake-eliminator" or if a small animal comes to the camp to bite a hunter in the leg. Mr. Batten stated if a hunter is out in the field and is drinking, then in his opinion it would be the hunter's own ignorance that caused his arrest. Secondly, uniformed officers are in possession of alcohol sensors utilized to determine intoxication, so game wardens would have access to such equipment as well. Lastly, in his years as a police officer, Mr. Batten recalled the homicide investigations to which he was involved most often included drugs and alcohol and therefore he commends Senator Adler for bringing this bill. Further discussion was held regarding the philosophy and reality of drinking and hunting. Chairman Anderson asked Dennis Neilander, Senior Research Analyst, to review the proposed amendments on S.B. 335. Mr. Neilander stated at line 5 of Section 1 of the bill "of or" be stricken. In Section 2, regarding the test administered pursuant to the DUI statutes, add language "except that a person has no right to refuse to the evidentiary test." Lastly, Mr. Neilander noted the committee's desire to add a self-defense exception. However, he would need further clarification on the definition, i.e., defense of self, others, and/or defense of your property, before he went to the bill drafters. Mr. Humke stated Lt. Galeoto's definition was somewhat broad and may leave too much room for interpretation; elaborating on the various scenarios that would elicit definitions of the self defense exception. Mr. Perkins added he did not see this issue being very complicated in that the common law standard with regard to self defense is clear. He further stated in this day and age you are not allowed to defend your personal property with deadly force unless there is a fear of injury to yourself or others. Additional comments were brought forth regarding self defense situations that may apply to S.B. 335. Mr. Neilander concluded he would get together with the bill drafters with the concept of self defense of yourself and others. Further, he reminded the committee the self-defense is only to the particular crime set forth in S.B. 335. ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 335 AS SET FORTH HEREINABOVE. ASSEMBLYMAN BATTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMEN CARPENTER, MONAGHAN, BUCKLEY, SCHNEIDER, AND MANENDO WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE. (It should be noted Assemblyman Manendo later requested a yes vote on S.B. 335) Chairman Anderson appointed Mr. Batten for floor assignment of S.B. 335. ASSEMBLY BILL 643 - Revises provisions governing testing of driver for presence of alcohol or controlled substance in his blood or breath. Ben Graham, Clark County District Attorney's office stated although A.B. 643 came from his office he would like to have Washoe County District Attorney, Richard Gammick present testimony in support of the bill. Mr. Graham stated A.B. 643 has nothing to do with the .08 blood alcohol level standard but has to do with the method of proving DUI charges. Richard Gammick, Washoe County District Attorney, introduced Roger Whomes, deputy district attorney, criminal division, in charge of the DUI enforcement division in Washoe County. Mr. Gammick stated when the DUI laws first came out they were not very popular. However, presently there is a large move to enforce these laws and create better laws to get drunk drivers off our roads. This "push" has eroded the "implied consent" provisions in the current DUI laws. Currently, if there is substantial bodily harm or death, or if there is proof that it is the second or third DUI, then a sample of blood can be drawn without implied consent. The only time implied consent is involved is for a first time DUI. Mr. Gammick stated A.B. 643 would simply bring the first time DUI in line with the other DUI cases. Roger Whomes, deputy district attorney, Washoe County, stated he was approached by Judy Jacoboni, Mothers against Drunk Driving (MADD) and Laurel Stadler also from MADD, who fully support A.B. 643 but were unable to testify today as they are in another hearing. Mr. Whomes pointed out if someone from out-of-state is stopped for a DUI and their license is revoked, there is no sanction to that driver. A.B. 643 would assist in this situation and still be fair to everyone. Mrs. Monaghan asked for clarification between the language set forth on page 5, lines, 42-47 and page 6, lines 3-6 regarding "reasonable force" and "if a person refuses or otherwise fails to provide the second or third test . . . " Mr. Whomes replied the breath samples for DUI testing are usually accomplished in a series of two tests for checks and balances purposes. Mr. Whomes explained at the time you are pulled over for DUI you are required to blow into the machine for two full breath tests. Mr. Gammick added if the individual refuses to take a second breath test you cannot force them to. However, the bill would allow the officer to take the individual to a facility to enforce a blood draw. Mr. Sandoval asked Mr. Gammick if his earlier comment regarding constitutionality upon reasonable grounds was as a result of litigation in Nevada. Mr. Gammick answered this issue goes back to the case of Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966), an evidence case whereby the officers have reasonable grounds to eliminate implied consent. Upon Ms. Steel's inquiry, Mr. Gammick stated implied consent is no longer given because of evolvement in the laws by the legislature over the past six years. The current legislation would eliminate implied consent for the first time DUI. William Gardner, Chief Prosecutor, Reno City Attorney's office stated he agreed with the information provided by Mr. Gammick and Mr. Whomes. He added the passage of A.B. 643 will remove the "guesswork" associated with DUI trials. Mr. Gardner remarked oftentimes in a DUI trial where there has been refusal of the test, it comes down to the officer's word against the defendant's word. Generally, this results in those persons with .10 blood alcohol level not being prosecuted and those with .10 blood alcohol level and above being prosecuted. In addition, after the last legislation anyone convicted of first time DUI with .18 alcohol level must be evaluated to see what an appropriate level of treatment should be. Mr. Gardner stressed by requiring a test be taken, it gives the court an accurate idea of the type of person before them and the type of alcohol intervention treatment necessary. Mr. Goldwater asked if A.B. 643 would in any way allow a defendant more time to get below the .10 blood alcohol level by refusing to take the test. Mr. Gardner responded there is no significant time factor involved with A.B. 643 in that the bill provides they can take three to four "straws" within a five-hour period. Ben Graham, Clark County District Attorney's Office, stated the accuracy portion is adequately dealt with in the bill. In addition, most often an individual will opt for the breath test rather than having their blood drawn with a needle. ASSEMBLYMAN SANDOVAL MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 643. ASSEMBLYMAN MONAGHAN SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Goldwater asked how this bill would affect the check points currently used to detect DUI cases. Chairman Anderson, noting no one present at the testimony table, asked Major Daniel G. Hammack, Nevada Highway Patrol to respond. Major Hammack stated this bill would not largely affect the check points as they currently operate. Further, it would be necessary to have reasonable cause to perform the evidentiary test on each person at a checkpoint. Mr. Schneider asked how A.B. 643 would come into play with the person who has masked their drug use with one drink of alcohol which would only register .03 blood alcohol level. Major Hammack concurred this is a common practice among drug users however there are indicators through the preliminary field sobriety test. So, if the breath test is low, then they can request a blood test. Ms. Ohrenschall asked if, under A.B. 643, the blood test could be forced. Major Hammack stated yes they could enforce a blood or urine test depending on what drug is suspected by way of knowledge or by way of possession. Chairman Anderson brought the motion back to the floor for a vote. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMEN BATTEN, HUMKE, AND STROTH WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE. Chairman Anderson appointed A.B. 643 to Mr. Perkins for floor assignment. ASSEMBLY BILL 624 - Defines "deadly weapon" for purpose of imposition of additional penalty for use of such weapon in commission of crime. Chairman Anderson stated A.B. 624 was brought forth through discussions in this committee, particularly, Mr. Perkins stressed the need for the definition. Mr. Perkins stated discussions were held early in this session about many of the crime provisions being passed out and the structure of the penalties based upon the use of a deadly weapon. Mr. Perkins added he has seen officers in his department define the use of a deadly weapon in very broad terms--including a 13" television. So, he thought it would serve many needs to clearly define this term so the Supreme Court could utilize the term in cases where the legislature had no intent for them to do so. Ben Graham, Clark County District Attorney's Office, stated their office supports A.B. 624. Mr. Graham reiterated the discussion of "deadly weapon" has come up many times before in previous sessions. His office requested Richard Gammick, Washoe County District Attorney, carry the testimony on this bill. Richard Gammick, Washoe County District Attorney's Office, testified NRS 193.165 provides in the commission of certain crimes with the use of a deadly weapon, that person be sentenced to a like consecutive term. Before the Nevada Supreme Court became active in this issue, they would charge the use of a deadly weapon enhancement in many cases. Mr. Gammick stated some of the items included an ashtray used in a beating, a pillow with a knife inside the sheath which killed an individual, etc. Both these cases were rejected by a jury as to the "deadly weapon" charge. The Nevada Supreme Court, in the case of Zgombic v. State, 106 Nev. 571 (1990), defined deadly weapon as simply being a gun or a particular type of knife. Mr. Gammick stated that has left the prosecution in a very ridiculous situation. For instance, in the famous "U-haul" murder cases in Reno, a crowbar was driven through a lady's head and they tried to get the "deadly weapon" enhancement but the court threw it out because it did not meet the Supreme Court's definition. Mr. Gammick relayed additional items such as hammers, pool cues, screw drivers, etc., that have been utilized and caused death but cannot be tried with the deadly weapon charge. A.B. 624 redefines implements used as deadly weapons, counters the Zgombic case, and allows the jury or judge to make a factual determination in each case. Mr. Gammick concluded his testimony stating he would be happy to answer any questions and he would appreciate time for rebuttal remarks if necessary. Ms. Ohrenschall remarked A.B. 624 was a very good bill. Mr. Carpenter asked how A.B. 624 would work with Senate Bill 416. Ben Graham, Clark County District Attorney's office replied this bill has not interfered in any way to the enhancement penalties for using a gun or victims over 65 years of age and therefore there would be no change to Senate Bill 416. Mr. Schneider asked if in a murder case you obtain the death penalty, why would it matter if you have a deadly weapon enhancement charge. Mr. Gammick stated that was a fair question and perhaps Senate Bill 416 will assist in that regard. However, under the current system, if you start with the death penalty it may take up to 20 years to apply and can be lost at any time through the appellate process. So, having a consecutive sentence to fall back on is a good idea such as two "lifes without." Then you have the possibility of having that sentence commuted to two "lifes with" when the case goes to the pardon's board. Then, at the second "life with" the inmate gets paroled out on the street even though he was originally on death row. Mr. Gammick concluded A.B. 624 would be utilized more often in robbery cases rather than murder cases because then you could get two, five-year consecutive sentences. Mr. Sandoval asked what the Supreme Court's justification was in limiting the deadly weapons definition to guns and certain types of knifes in the Zgombic case. Mr. Gammick stated he did not understand the rationale of the Supreme Court in Zgombic especially since all previous case law held otherwise. Mr. Perkins relayed the facts surrounding a murder case in Henderson which was a large reason why he requested this bill as well. Mr. Gammick concluded the Zgombic case involved death by the use of steel-toed boots kicking the victim repeatedly in the head noting for the committee Justice Mowbray issued a dissenting opinion in that case. John C. Morrow, Chief Administrative Deputy, Washoe County Public Defender, testified in opposition of A.B. 624. Mr. Morrow stated in Zgombic, the Supreme Court looked at the reason for having weapons enhancements and they concluded the weapon enhancement is designed to deter people from using inherently deadly devices. They then looked at the caselaw evolved under the "functional test" of the deadly weapon as shown in Section 5(b) of A.B. 624. In the Supreme Court's interpretation, they saw results that were absurd. For example, a table fork used functionally as a deadly weapon, a rock, a stump, and even a pair of panty hose were held to be deadly weapons at one time. Mr. Morrow believes the Supreme Court has now, through a rational application of the law, reached a conclusion of what is an enhancement. Mr. Perkins commented if the definition of deadly weapon was being addressed with the concept of "fundamental fairness" it would be easier to have A.B. 624 in place then the jury could decide a deadly weapon enhancement use and the defense bar could still try to convince the jury otherwise. Mr. Morrow stated he trusts the jury system entirely; however, the typical juror would be unduly influenced by photographs of the murder scene and would most likely want to punish the defendant in every way they can. Ms. Steel emphasized the Supreme Court generally follows the lead of the legislature and then interprets what we have said to them in the past. Perhaps the messages they received from the legislature in the past were regarding an "inherently deadly weapon" whereas now the attempt is to define "deadly weapon". Mr. Morrow stated initially there was no definition of a deadly weapon which forced the Supreme Court to make certain choices through various decisions. He believed the structure they have arrived at is based on common sense and fairness to individuals charged with crimes. Mr. Carpenter said he liked the bill. Chairman Anderson asked about the specific language on page 2(c) delineating specific statutes. Mr. Morrow stated some of those statutes deal with weapons on school grounds. Mr. Gammick, upon his request for rebuttal testimony briefly commented there are currently two standards for deadly weapon enhancement. If it is battery with a deadly weapon then the burden is determining how the weapon is used. If it is murder, robbery or any of the other enunciated crimes, then it is whether or not it is an inherently dangerous weapon, which brings it back to just guns and knifes. Mr. Gammick expressed his disagreement with Mr. Morrow that the Supreme Court's interpretation of deadly weapons is rational. Whereby, he finds their interpretation very restrictive. Lastly, Mr. Gammick concurred with Mr. Perkins' comments that the prosecution should be allowed to charge the use of a deadly weapon then let the jury decide whether or not it meets the definition. Mr. Morrow, upon Chairman Anderson's offer of rebuttal, stated the committee should take a good look at Senate Bill 416, the truth-in-sentencing bill, because the current sentencing structure elucidated by Mr. Gammick may not play a role and the enhancement may not even be necessary if Senate Bill 416 passes. Chairman Anderson announced a break at 10:00 a.m. and the committee reconvened as a subcommittee at 10:20 a.m. SENATE BILL 273 - Revises standard for determining whether operator of motor vehicle is under influence of alcohol and cause death of, or substantial bodily harm to, another person. Ben Graham, Clark County District Attorney's Office, stated S.B. 273 is a "clean- up" bill from the 1993 legislation whereby there were four areas in question regarding the DUI laws. Three areas were cleared up in 1993 and S.B. 273 attempts to clean up the last area. Chairman Anderson announced a quorum present at 10:23 a.m. Mr. Graham continued there was a court decision in the Nevada Supreme Court and in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which brought into question the presumption regarding the blood alcohol level at the time of driving versus the time of testing. The Ninth Circuit Court decided that was not a good presumption and that was corrected except in the instance of a DUI with substantial bodily harm or death. S.B. 273 attempts to correct the issue. Mr. Graham stated there was no opposition to this bill in the Senate and concluded S.B. 273 brings into compliance the other areas of DUI laws. Upon Chairman Anderson's request, Mr. Graham elaborated further the bill specifically addresses the statute involving the testing of DUI cases for .10 alcohol blood level and allows the state to utilize the blood test and gives the defendant the opportunity to dispute the test. Roger Whomes, Washoe County District Attorney's Office expounded the bill only applies to DUI with death or substantial bodily harm. The problem arises when you have a test where the blood alcohol level is close to .10. The prosecution becomes difficult and allows a "last gulp defense" from the defense bar. This is a defense whereby the defendant alleges just before they got in the car they drank a tremendous amount of alcohol and that is why the test result was high when in fact at the time of the accident, they were not over .10. The amendment contained in S.B. 273 makes it illegal to be driving with a .10 level within two hours of driving thereby eliminating the above defense argument. Further discussion was held as to the interpretation of the bill. ASSEMBLYMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 273. ASSEMBLYMAN STEEL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMEN BATTEN, SCHNEIDER, BUCKLEY, AND HUMKE WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE. Chairman Anderson appointed himself for floor assignment of S.B. 273. (It should be noted Assemblyman Humke returned after the vote and requested he be included in the yes vote.) ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 624. ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMEN BATTEN AND SCHNEIDER WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE. Chairman Anderson appointed Mr. Perkins for floor assignment of A.B. 624. There being no further business before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 10:38 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Joi Davis, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman Assemblyman David E. Humke, Chairman Assembly Committee on Judiciary June 5, 1995 Page