MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Sixty-eighth Session March 9, 1995 The Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 10:00 a.m., on Thursday, March 9, 1995, in Room 224 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator Mark A. James, Chairman Senator Jon C. Porter, Vice Chairman Senator Maurice Washington Senator Mike McGinness Senator Dina Titus Senator O. C. Lee COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Senator Ernest E. Adler (Excused) STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Allison Combs, Senior Research Analyst Lori M. Story, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Stephanie D. Licht, Lobbyist, Elko County Linda P. Ritter, Assistant County Manager, Elko County The chairman opened the hearing and introduced the subject of the day's hearing: truth-in-sentencing. He referred to the crime classification grid (Exhibit C) which contains the "cleaned-up" version of the proposed changes to sentences in the Nevada criminal justice system. Continuing, Senator James stated the subcommittee had put together a comprehensive sentencing reform package to be enacted this legislative session. It is to be used to revise the criminal sentencing code in its entirety, and was compiled using information provided by the Department of Prisons and the Division of Parole and Probation, the senator told the committee. The intent of this grid and the legislation related to it, Senator James explained, is to provide some consistency and rationality to the criminal justice process. Noting there has been extensive discussion of the contents and intent of the classification grid, and that it has already been provided to the bill drafters for their consideration, the chairman called for a motion to request a bill be drafted incorporating the information as presented. SENATE BILL 40: Increases penalty for certain convicted habitual criminals. SENATE BILL 192: Makes various changes related to criminal and civil laws pertaining to sexual deviants. SENATE BILL 245: Prohibits state board of pardons commissioners from commuting sentence of death or life imprisonment without possibility of parole to sentence allowing parole. Before he accepted the motion, the senator pointed out that other bills that had been presented to the committee, Senate Bill (S.B.) 192 and S.B. 40 would be mirrored in this bill draft request. Additionally, S.B. 245, which deals with the sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole, will also be consistent with the contents of the classification grid. Senator James offered the committee an overview of the classification grid. There are several major parts to the proposed bill draft request as outlined in Exhibit D, which the chairman summarized for the committee. One part that revises the way sentences are handed down and the way they are served in prison, he stated, noting that under current law a sentence range is set out in the statute. The sentencing judge has discretion to hand down any sentence within the range for that crime, he continued, but after the sentence is handed down, several other factors within the system affect the length of time that is actually served. These factors include the vesting of parole eligibility, and the application of good-time credits. Information was provided by the department of prisons which gave a sampling of the sentences handed down versus the actual time served for a variety of crimes, Senator James said, and he listed several examples. The recommended changes to this system were sketched by the senator and are clearly outlined in Exhibit D. The second part to the bill draft proposal is the categorization of all crimes in order to group offenses of like seriousness and harm together under the same or similar penalty ranges, he told, and he outlined the various categories ( Exhibit C). Senator James delineated the categories: category A-serious or violent felonies for which the judge may impose a sentence of life, with or without the possibility of parole, along with death-sentence crimes; category B-serious felonies that typically involve violence, for which the judge may impose an appropriate sentence from a definite sentence range; category C(1)-felonies for which a judge may impose either a prison term or a community sentence; category C(2)-felonies for which a judge may impose either a shorter term of imprisonment or a community sentence; category D(1)-drug crimes that involve the sales or trafficking of drugs; and, category D(2)- drug crimes that involve the possession or use of drugs. Returning to Exhibit D, the senator continued his presentation. He discussed the results of proposed changes to sentences involving the various categories of offenses and explained for the committee what is meant by "community sentence," and how restitution can or must be ordered in various situations. The chairman emphasized the involvement and efforts of Senator Washington in the subcommittee. He noted it was the senator's suggestion which initiated the classification grid before the subcommittee. He also emphasized the efforts of both the subcommittee and the committee as a whole to produce a comprehensive sentencing reform. Senator James, as chairman, said it was his goal to have the requested bill out of committee, to the Senate and over to the Assembly by the end of March. There will be a fiscal analysis of the impact of the legislation upon the prison system, he promised, which has already been commenced. Because of the breadth of the proposed reform, Senator James stated the committee would be working with the Governor's proposal for a sentencing commission. The role of such a commission, he said, will be to review the results of the legislation and to make recommendations for changes in the future. Criminal justice and the systems supporting it are dynamic and ever-changing, the senator observed, and it is necessary to ensure these systems adequately address the needs of society as it exists in the present. This dynamic quality points to the usefulness of a commission as a means to continually observe and evaluate changes, as they occur, in order to direct the efforts of the Legislature most effectively. He asked Senator Washington to comment. Senator Washington opined the committee was looking at a comprehensive package that will deal with the current problems facing the criminal justice system, if it is allowed to work. He expressed a view that through this legislation there would be a return to truth-in-sentencing. This bill will add some respect for the victims of crimes because the perpetrator will know what his punishment really is, and the victims will be able to count on the criminal paying some particular price for his acts, he observed. This is not a patchwork quilt of changes, but rather a comprehensive look at the entire Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), Senator Washington continued, with an opportunity for the sentencing commission to continue the pattern of all-encompassing and completely thought out revisions for the future. Senator McGinness spoke next commending the subcommittee and staff for their hard work and time spent to formulate this proposal. Agreeing with Senator Washington, he stated, the victims want to know that "if somebody is sentenced to 5 [years] to 10 [years], it means 5 to 10." The senator recalled his conversations with wardens during the committee's tours of the detention and prison facilities. He told of their belief that good-time credits are a very important way to maintain discipline and control in the facilities. This proposal is crafted in such a fashion as to retain that incentive for good behavior while incarcerated, he observed. The senator opined it is important to understand the proposed reduced sentences for drug use is in the case of first-time offenders, along with the provision that they be directed into programs which will set them back into the productive segment of society. He expressed his view that the 7,000 prison beds that Nevada has should be used to keep the 7,000 worst, most dangerous people off the streets and out of society. He offered to move for the bill draft request. Senator Porter offered his congratulations to the subcommittee, along with his second of any motion that might follow. He testified as to his initial distress and confusion, when, as a freshman legislator, he observed the duplicative and competing efforts of the Governor and the Legislature as they addressed the same concerns. This distress has proved to be unfounded, the senator noted, and he commended the committee on the cooperative efforts of both branches of the government (legislative and executive) to bring in the proposal and to form the sentencing commission. The consistency is in place now, so the legal system can proceed uniformly, he said. Senator Titus recalled a previous day when the chairman and she had appeared on a television program to discuss crime in a "point and counter-point" format. She further recalled the two senators were "pretty much in line on all the basics." Since that time, the senator said, there has been a degree of political shifting, but at present the differences have been ironed out, and there appears to be a nonpartisan air to this bill. She expressed her feelings of anticipation toward working with the chairman and committee members on the legislation as it develops. Senator Washington asked to take the floor once again to offer his thanks for all the witnesses and experts who provided testimony, information, and statistics to the subcommittee. Without the necessary information, it would have been impossible to proceed to this point he noted. Asking to make some observations, Senator Lee addressed the committee. He told the committee of his previous professional experiences as a police officer, when he was required to arrest the same individual for burglary twice, in one shift. This makes it a little bit difficult to go back to work the next day, he said. Knowing law enforcement personnel as he does, the senator stated he feels they will be proud of this proposed bill. He expressed his pride in being able to participate in its formulation. The chairman called for a motion, noting there still remained a lot of work to do. With anticipated comments to be forthcoming from a fiscal standpoint, from the standpoint of parole and probation, as well as from the prison personnel, it is reasonable to expect that modifications may be required. SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO APPROVE THE BILL DRAFT REQUEST AS OUTLINED. SENATOR McGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR ADLER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** The next item before the committee was a bill draft request made by Stephanie D. Licht, Lobbyist, Elko County, and Linda P. Ritter, Assistant County Manager, Elko County. Ms. Licht introduced Ms. Ritter as the individual who would make the formal request, but prior to Ms. Ritter taking the floor, Ms. Licht voiced her appreciation to the committee for their efforts with the previous truth-in-sentencing proposal. She then proceeded to give a small overview of the problem Ms. Ritter would ask the committee to address. Ms. Ritter told the committee she was present at the request of the Elko County Commission to request two bills to be drafted; one which would "provide immunity from civil liability to physicians that provide two valuable services" in Elko County, and one which would "provide immunity from civil liability to physicians who act as medical directors of publicly operated ambulance services." Her request is outlined more thoroughly in a letter addressed to the committee and incorporated here as Exhibit E. The chairman asked for questions. There were none. He asked for a motion. SENATOR McGINNESS MOVED TO REQUEST A BILL DRAFT REQUEST AS OUTLINED. SENATOR LEE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR ADLER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** BILL DRAFT REQUEST 16-506: Revises requirements for testing of certain offenders for exposure to HIV. The chairman thanked the witnesses. He then moved to a committee introduction of Bill Draft Request (BDR) 16-506. He called for a motion to introduce the BDR. SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 16-506. SENATOR LEE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR ADLER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** BILL DRAFT REQUEST 14-1756: Revises provisions governing alternatives for court action upon arrest of probationer. The next item was a request for committee introduction of BDR 14-1756. The chairman called for a motion. SENATOR LEE MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 15-1756. SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR ADLER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** After making some announcements regarding the next week's meeting schedule, there was no further business before the committee. The chairman adjourned the hearing at 10:00 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Lori M. Story, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Mark A. James, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Judiciary March 9, 1995 Page