MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Sixty-eighth Session March 16, 1995 The Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 8:30 a.m., on Thursday, March 16, 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 O. C. Lee COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Senator Ernest E. Adler (Excused) Senator Dina Titus GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Senator Raymond D. Rawson STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Allison Combs, Senior Research Analyst Lori M. Story, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens Tonja Brown, Citizen Douglas E. Walther, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Division of Unclaimed Property, Department of Business and Industry SENATE BILL (S.B.) 235: Provides that persons convicted of certain offenses related to sex are not eligible for probation, parole or credits against their term of imprisonment. The hearing began with a presentation from Senator Raymond D. Rawson, who is sponsoring the first piece of legislation before the committee (S.B. 235). He thanked the committee for their time and dispersed a copy of his prepared statement and attachments (Exhibit C). He characterized the bill as "a tough-on- crime bill" but noted his hesitation to use that descriptor. Senator Rawson explained to the committee the individuals who commit the crimes encompassed by this bill (sex offenses) tend to be repeat offenders. He went over the provisions of the bill, as outlined in his statement and offered some statistics regarding the occurrence of these crimes and who is committing them. Senator Rawson also pointed out there is some opposition to the bill, particularly from a group who fears that mistakes are made in convicting individuals. The senator admitted that, if mistakes are made, innocent people will suffer for them. This possibility does not outweigh the fact that the system is designed to stop mistakes from being made and allows many avenues to redress any mistakes that might be made. A second concern offered by Senator Rawson was pointed out by the Rape Crisis Center staff, who fear some women may not report attacks "if they know that their acquaintance may have to suffer a long sentence because of the crime." This, he said, is a societal problem which the committee can consider and weigh against the good the bill might do. The witness offered Arizona as an example. "They talk in terms of having about 3,000 sex offenders in the state. Two thousand of them are in prison, 1,000 are on the street, and they basically rotate through the system," he said. This situation is an improvement, he noted, because they have toughened their laws and eliminated the means to shorten sentences. The senator offered the latest figures that pertain to Nevada prisons: of 7186 inmates, there are 914 men in prison for sex offenses and 13 women; equaling 12.9 percent of the prison population in Nevada. In a 4-year period, sex crimes have increased from 1.6 percent of all crimes committed to 2.4 percent, he told, with Nevada somewhere between third and fifth place in the country. This makes sex crimes a very serious situation for the citizens of Nevada, Senator Rawson emphasized. One positive thing he pointed out is Nevada is one of 40 states that requires sex offenders to register with local law enforcement authorities. He concluded his remarks by reminding the committee that women in our country and the world are subject to abuse and assault, and "it is time that it stopped." The chairman noted the appreciation of the committee for the information provided by the visiting senator, and for his sponsorship of the bill. He concurred with the senator's concern and he outlined for the committee and the audience several sex offenses on the "books," along with the sentence given and the sentence served. This statistical sample showed: the crime of lewdness with a child usually received a 5-year sentence and the convict usually served 2 years; child pornography receives a 15-year sentence, with 4.57 years served; rape usually receives about 14 years, with 6 years served, and rape of a child receives 13 years with 7 years served, he said. He turned to the committee for questions. Senator Porter also noted the timeliness of the legislation, adding his concern for the silent victims of sexual crimes. He speculated that only one-third to one-half of sex crimes are reported. He expressed his view this legislation is a step toward reassuring those silent victims that something concrete can and is being done to stop these crimes. Senator Washington asked for confirmation of the fact that Nevada does require registration of sex offenders. He was assured that is the case by the witness, while there is not a notification of victims, because of the expense attached to such a requirement. Senator James noted there was a bill passed during the previous session that did provide for limited notification of the victims. Senator Lee told the committee of his own personal contact with people who have been victims of sexual assault. He told of their pain and their difficulty in dealing with personal relationships, even many years after the assault. He expressed his sincere support for this bill, no matter what the fiscal impact might be. He promised to convince his constituents of the reasonableness of the costs and the worthwhile nature of the issue. Senator James again thanked the visiting senator. He noted there would need to be some work in order to bring his proposal in line with the omnibus bill being prepared by the judiciary committee. He explained the committee would work with him in order to ensure the bill would become law. Senator Rawson asked the committee to at least use it as support for the omnibus approach, recognizing the complexity of sentencing issues. Senator James called for further testimony. Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens, briefly took the floor to offer her group's support for the bill. She noted the committee's positive support of the bill and added that the protection of the public is the first priority. Next, Tonja Brown, Citizen, spoke to the committee in opposition to S.B. 235. She spoke directly from a prepared statement (Exhibit D), then discussion ensued and she answered questions for the committee. Senator James stated it is his feeling to agree with some of Ms. Brown's testimony, but explained that if there is evidence of a wrongful conviction, that person should not receive good-time credits, that person should go free. He said he feels the issues are different, Ms. Brown addressing wrongful conviction and the bill addressing sentence reform. Ms. Brown agreed, but opined that persons who are wrongly convicted should be allowed to have the merits of their appeal determined by the parole board, and if merit is found there, the convict should be allowed good-time credits while waiting for the appeal process. Ms. Brown's brother, who is the subject of her opposition and concern with S.B. 235, has been incarcerated for almost 7 years for a rape conviction. It was Ms. Brown's contention that, if people in his position are not allowed good time credits, they will end up serving even longer time on a sentence they do not deserve. Senator Porter spoke to the witness, asking how long it has been since her brother was convicted. She replied it had been almost 7 years. Statistics seem to show, the senator said, the average time served for a rape conviction is 6 to 7 years. He surmised the witness wished to help shorten the sentence for a convict who is appealing his conviction, because it can take the entire length of the sentence to process such a series of appeals. She said that is the case. Senator James interjected the witness has a real problem; unfortunately it could not be addressed through this legislation. He said that while he is a "staunch defender of the rights of the accused,...once they are proven guilty, [he] thinks we should throw the book at them." In a case of a miscarriage of justice, it is up to the court system to rectify that, the senator continued, noting post-conviction reforms would be better addressed in some other bill or some other venue. The witness stepped down. There was no further testimony and the hearing was closed. The committee moved to a work session. SENATE BILL 156: Extends limit on time for rehearing upon denial of parole. Senator James recalled the intent of the bill for the committee. Reminding the committee of Senior Deputy Attorney General Anne Cathcart's testimony and the parole board's request that the legislation be retroactive. There was some question about the constitutionality of such a law, but there was a motion to do as the board requested and make the bill retroactive. Since that time, the chairman told them, he had received a memorandum (Exhibit E) from Bradley Wilkinson, Deputy Legislative Counsel, in response to his request that retroactivity be researched. The memo said a retrospective law would be unconstitutional because it would be a law that is Ex Post Facto, (i.e., contains punitive provisions that make individuals subject to new sanctions that were not originally imposed at sentencing). The chairman asked for questions. There were none. He next asked for a motion to rescind the committee's previous motion to amend and do pass S.B. 156. SENATOR McGINNESS MOVED TO RESCIND THE COMMITTEE'S PREVIOUS MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 156. SENATOR LEE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS ADLER, TITUS AND PORTER WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Next, the chairman called for a motion to do pass, without the amendment, S.B. 156. SENATOR McGINNESS MOVED TO DO PASS WITHOUT AMENDMENT S.B. 156. SENATOR LEE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS ADLER AND TITUS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** SENATE BILL 229: Provides specifically for personal service of summons in civil action upon party who is outside State of Nevada. This bill, Senator James explained, was brought back to committee after having been taken to the Senate floor. It is a jurisdiction bill which was designed to address some ancillary concerns with bills from the previous session. Since the previous session of the Legislature, the supreme court amended their rules to allow for long-arm jurisdiction, he explained. With this change, the bill drafters made some changes to the bill, Senator James continued. After further discussion with the bill drafters, it was decided the long-arm jurisdiction language should be reinserted into the bill, in order to avoid future problems. There were no questions from the committee and the chairman called for a motion. SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 229. SENATOR McGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS ADLER AND TITUS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** The senator said he would handle the bill on the floor. SENATE BILL 155: Revises certain provisions governing unclaimed property. Noting he had received a message from Coni Longero, the administrator of the Unclaimed Property division of the Department of Business and Industry, the chairman asked if the committee members had received Ms. Longero's memorandum (Exhibit F). Douglas E. Walther, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Division of Unclaimed Property (the division), Department of Business and Industry, addressed the committee on behalf of Ms. Longero. He noted the proposed amendments to S.B. 155 are contained in the memo (Exhibit F). Senator James stated there is also a proposed amendment from the bill drafters (Exhibit G), which is based upon the information from the previous hearing. Mr. Walther outlined the proposed amendments. He told the committee the division has requested the deletion of a duplicate mailing, to be substituted with some other form of contact. The request was made that specific language be included in the change which would outline what substitutes would be used. The second amendment, Mr. Walther explained, is designed to address the concerns of financial institutions which incur some exposure and expense if the division does not accept the property that is retrieved from safe deposit boxes of closed or inactive accounts. The chairman summarized the changes, as outlined by the division. Mr. Walther concurred with his summary. Senator James then turned to the amendments presented by the bill drafters (Exhibit G) which eliminates sections 1-6 and 12-14. These sections provided for the shortening of the time period within which property would be declared abandoned or unclaimed. The committee is not inclined to make that change, he stated. Senator James noted the efforts outlined in the amendment (Exhibit F) appears to offer more promise of contact than the previously required postcard mailing. After Senator McGinness reminded the committee of their previous work on the bill and the chairman clarified for Mr. Walther the intent of the amendment contained within Exhibit F, Ms. Lusk took the floor. She expressed her concern with the offered language. She said it does not contain a specific contact with every person who owned property being held by the division. She admitted she is unable to offer any good wording, which would address her group's concern. Senator James offered his proposed language which would address her concern. His suggested change was: ...shall, in every case, make efforts reasonably calculated to give actual notice to the owner of the property. Senator James asked the parties if there was further concern with the proposed amendments. There was none. The chairman called for a motion. SENATOR LEE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 155. SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS ADLER AND TITUS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** The chairman said there is a slight chance the hearing scheduled for the following day would be canceled. He promised "to make efforts reasonably calculated to contact everyone concerned." There was no further business and the hearing was adjourned at 9:50 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Lori M. Story, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Mark A. James, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Judiciary March 16, 1995 Page