MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Sixty-eighth Session April 26, 1995 The Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 9:00 a.m., on Wednesday, April 26, 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 Maurice Washington Senator Mike McGinness Senator Ernest E. Adler Senator Dina Titus Senator O.C. Lee COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Senator Jon Porter, Vice Chairman (Excused) STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Allison Combs, Senior Research Assistant Marilyn Hofmann, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Aaron David McVey, Senior Research Associate, National Council on Crime and Delinquency Michael A. Jones, Senior Researcher, National Council on Crime and Delinquency Sheriff Jerry Keller, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Charles Thompson, Assistant District Attorney, Office of the Clark County District Attorney Dick Gammick Glen Whorton, Classification & Planning Specialist, Public Information Officer, State of Nevada, Department of Prisons Senator James opened the hearing with a discussion regarding an amendment to Senate Bill (S.B.) 114. SENATE BILL 114: Makes various changes to provisions prohibiting harassment and stalking. The chairman indicated the assembly judiciary committee had requested an amendment to the bill, which he approved. Senator James stated the amendment dealt with making the stalking of a spouse charge a gross misdemeanor on the first offense and a felony on the second. He said he concurred with the amendment. SENATOR ADLER MOVED TO CONCUR WITH THE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT TO S.B. 114. SENATOR McGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR PORTER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * Senator James stated the primary focus of the hearing was a discussion of the truth-in-sentencing legislation. (S.B. 416 will be introduced on April 27, 1995.) SENATE BILL 416: Makes various changes regarding sentencing of persons convicted of felonies. The chairman indicated testimony would be presented regarding the fiscal impact of the bill from two individuals representing the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD). Senator James said he first wished to address some of the controversy through the press regarding the drug sentences set forth in the legislation. He stated he wanted to make it clear to the members of the committee that if there are changes or other proposals, although they may not be supported, they should be heard. Senator James said the aim was to divert "low- level drug users" to other programs, which will lead to a fiscal savings and also be a more effective way of dealing with that type of person. He said some of the sentences have also been reduced for other levels of drug possession. Senator James stated judges and prosecutors had been asked to indicate whether any of the sentences should be changed, and to testify whether the goal of having a person give substantial assistance to a prosecutor would be impeded by the way the sentences are set forth. He said there was no testimony in that regard. Senator James continued: We have to understand that the goal of this bill, as I have been putting it together is to try to use the valuable and expensive prison space we have in this state for the violent offenders, and to divert the nonviolent offenders to other programs or to probation. That applies to drug cases as well. Senator James again referenced articles which had been recently published in the Nevada press and said: One thing you have to understand is that for drugs...when you get into large level trafficking and high level trafficking, you have two systems of justice that are both working on this problem. A lot of the big traffickers go into the federal system. So if you are dealing with someone who is a large level trafficker, he will probably be prosecuted...and incarcerated under the federal system, if it is not done under the state system. ... But if you look at murder, rape, robbery, burglary and other violent crimes on Nevada citizens, that is our responsibility solely...you can't rely on the federal system to deal with those. So a murderer is someone who is going to be in prison under the state system, or not going to be in prison at all.... Senator James indicated he wanted people to understand his philosophy. He continued, "I believe strongly that people who sell drugs are committing a very serious crime and it is the root of a lot of other crimes in society, and I think we are punishing them pretty severely in this bill." Senator James said a further purpose of the bill was to attempt to treat the users, i.e., those who are creating the demand for the supply of drugs. He added, "When someone sells a drug to another, you have two criminals. When someone murders someone, there is just one criminal. There is a difference and a distinction which has to be recognized." The chairman then quoted from a study by the Kato Institute: Mandatory drug sentences endanger public safety, Kato Institute study finds. Mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenders are the best thing that ever happened to violent criminals...mandatory minimum sentences enacted in the 1980s have led to the early release of violent criminals to make room in our prisons for nonviolent, first-time drug offenders... If a drug dealer is in prison, the availability of drugs will not be diminished. The law of supply and demand states that as long as there is a demand for a product, the market will make that product available at some price. ... Allocating vast amounts of prison space to such easily replaced offenders is not simply a waste of resources, but a dangerous waste of resources. Senator James stated they had heard that from other witnesses, and said prison space must be dedicated to the violent offenders. He continued, "We have people in there who are taking up space...they are in there for nonviolent drug-type crimes that should be treated otherwise." Senator James reiterated that those members of the committee who wish to increase sentences for drug offenders, or any other type of drug crime, "...should approach the committee with their own separate fiscal impact and indicate how they are going to pay for the additional prison space...." Senator Titus responded: I am sure you are referring to Senator Adler's and my comment that concern for drug traffickers in the A crime category. There has never been any question that we agree that...the nonviolent, first-time drug offenders should have reduced sentences. We have always supported that and certainly want to make room for the more violent offenders. However, this information that we got shows that people who fall into this category are only taking up five or six beds...it is a very small group. When we look at those and we talk about the possibility that maybe we should consider not dropping that from 202 to 84 months as the minimum sentence, we are talking about only five people. I think it is worth talking about. We have heard a lot of testimony from one side...we haven't really heard anything from the drug people...that maybe if we hear all of the testimony on that issue, this will seem like an appropriate reduction in penalty.... Senator James replied: I am happy to hear that, but I want to make clear the record of this committee will show on that specific issue on this crime, [category] A drug sale...2 days ago I sat here, with the tape recorder running, and pointed out to this committee that we are making this reduction...we are going from 202 to 84 on that crime...and what I said was, what we are doing is bringing these in line. Instead of having 202 for drug sales for the time of months in prison and 184 for murder, which is a flip-flop...you get more time for selling drugs in this state than you do for blowing somebody's head off...instead of having that, we are going to have 84 for drug sale and 352 months for murder. I said, `If anybody has difficulty with that, I would like to hear whether anybody wants to change it.' And, nobody came forward with that. But then, the comments were made outside the committee hearing. I think if those concerns are here, they ought to be addressed here. Let's bring them up...let's talk about them. If somebody wants to move those up, tell me if you want it to be...150 months...let's talk about it. But, let's talk about how we are going to pay for it. That's what the whole objective of these meetings is. Senator Adler asked to clarify the record, and stated: I didn't make any comments outside the committee meeting. I think if you interview the press, you can ask them. I never said anything outside that I haven't already said inside. I think the part of my comments really go to the lower end. I still have a problem with the `E' offenses...that the only sentence a judge can hand out is probation for a felony...I think if we are going to do that, we might want to consider moving some of those down to gross misdemeanors, which will have lower prison impact...but making second offenses real felonies. I think that was more my comment along those lines. I am not sure I disagree with the chairman philosophically on how this bill is structured. Senator Adler added he still had some questions regarding the overall structure of the bill, such as the recatagorization of certain crimes. He indicated he would put those concerns in writing to the committee. Senator Washington stated he had previously entertained the idea of moving that the committee "up the sentences on the middle of the side of the A drug sale trafficking." He said after hearing the comments, discussions and testimonies, he rescinded his motion, due to the fact that ...my understanding is that those that are trafficking schedule 1 or schedule A...or trafficking marijuana...10,000 pounds...or trafficking schedule 1...400 grams...where there is a 25- and a 15-year minimum placed on these offenders, are basically not serving 25 or even near to it when they are convicted. My understanding now is that because we have placed a minimum of 7, 5 and 5 years on these offenders, they will be serving this time in prison. The impact is minimum...and we will be doing a greater service to the community as opposed to keep it where it is currently. I am in concurrence and I am going to stick with my convictions, as far as leaving these minimum sentences where they are, based on the testimony and the information I have received. Senator James moved to the presentation provided by the NCCD, which is set forth herein as Exhibit C. The first to speak were Michael A. Jones, Senior Researcher and Aaron David McVey, Senior Research Associate, National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD). Mr. Jones provided a brief overview of the process necessary to attempt to determine the impact of a "truth-in-sentencing" proposal. He said the proposal "diverted certain offenders from prison, and those who were not diverted from prison, as a rule, spent longer time in prison." Mr. Jones said the proposal also changed sentencing ranges. He said the study covered the last 12 months of prison admissions, which were broken into groups. He said they then basically projected the population, under the assumption that currently sentencing policies would remain in effect. Mr. Jones said they then "...projected them under an assumption that the proposed sentencing structures would be in effect and we compared the difference." He said they included in this projection 35 different offense groups. Mr. Jones referenced the graphs included in Exhibit C and explained the same. He said they found that between 300 and 400 inmates per year (certain D and E felons) were diverted. Mr. Jones indicated that would translate into a reduction of approximately 700 beds. He stated there would be an increase in the overall impact as a result of longer prison stays. Mr. Jones stated the numbers set forth assume the legislation is passed this fiscal year and goes into effect on July 1, 1995, with the first inmates going into the prison system in October 1995. Senator James asked if the first assumption was that all new commitment E and "attempt E" felons were diverted from prison, but accounts for the fact that there were still E people going in on parole violations. Mr. Jones agreed. The chairman said the committee members would note there was a higher fiscal impact than the impact which was originally received. He said that was a result of an indication that the NCCD "should not include any diversions for category C attempts." Senator James stated his intent was "to be conservative" because he did not want to make any assumptions that judges are going to divert those categories. He then asked if the assumption was, "...that all the ones that are going in there now for the E crimes pleaded down from a higher crime...to get there, and with the bill in effect, none would be pleaded...they would all go to prison for a higher crime." Mr. Jones agreed with Senator James' comment. Senator Adler asked Mr. Jones if a breakdown was done in terms of the custody level of those persons who were diverted as opposed to those who would be "doing longer time." Mr. Jones answered that had not yet been done. Senator Adler indicated it appeared that most of the diversions were "coming out of what we would consider the honor camp classification." Mr. Jones agreed and said the proposal was to divert the "shorter sentenced, least expensive, nonviolent criminals," while adding time to the more expensive, more violent criminals. Mr. McVey went into more detail regarding the "assumptions." He said he essentially started with an admission sample provided to him by the Department of Prisons over the past 12 months; then taking every case which was admitted, he broke the samples down "...by whether or not they were a new commitment, a probation violation commitment, a parole violator commitment, (technical versus a parole violator commitment with a new crime), or other sets of groups." Mr. McVey indicated he did not divert anyone except those cases which went in as new commitments. He added cases which went in as probation violators or parole violators were not diverted under the alternative scenario, which is shown by the minimum impact. Mr. McVey went on to say what he did to estimate the effect of the new sentence ranges was "...take current sentences and assume that would be the maximum, unless it fell outside the range under the new law." He said if that fell beyond the range of the new law, he truncated it back to the maximum sentence under the proposed range. Mr. McVey referenced the proposed minimum sentencing changes. He said he was given minimum parole date times on the sample, and calculated the "maximum minimum" sentence allowable under the ranges and used 40 percent of the maximum sentence as a "maximum minimum." Mr. McVey added: "If the current time to parole went beyond that, I set it to that. In 90 percent of the cases it either stayed the same or was pushed up to a minimum 1 year from something less than 1 year." He said a lot of the groups have minimum parole dates that are 5 to 7 months, which were pushed up to 1 year. Mr. McVey asked the committee to examine page 3 of Exhibit C, which details the diversions. Senator James asked Mr. McVey to explain to the committee members what the "spike" came from and the 1-year minimum issue. Mr. McVey then turned to page 4 of Exhibit C, which details the assumed changes in average minimum parole dates for people who would be going into the system under the proposed changes. He clarified the far-right column on the chart represented "admissions per year," not "beds." Mr. McVey pointed out the current average minimum to parole eligibility does not include jail credits. He said since an assumption was made that jail credits essentially would not change, the impact on the average minimum would basically stay the same, regardless of what the affected jail credits would be. Mr. McVey, utilizing the chart on page 4 of Exhibit C, pointed out in the female group, of 42 cases which were not diverted, the impact on their average time to minimum parole is an average increase of 4 months. He said in the male group the D drug sale group is reduced an average of 1.8 months, while the E drug possession rises by 5.6 months. Senator James indicated that was an important point and he wanted to make sure everyone understood they were "...diverting the E drug possession-type people, who go to other programs." He added, however, under the bill those persons would actually spend more time in prison, if they were to go to prison by virtue of violation of conditions of probation. Senator James indicated this would have a positive fiscal impact on the prison system, based upon the assumption of the number of people who would violate probation on E drug possession crimes. He added: "If you are a `druggie,' we give you a chance with this bill...you go to a program, and if you violate the program, you are actually going to spend more time in prison than you would have...." Mr. McVey indicated that person would spend 5 or 6 months more in prison before being eligible for parole. Mr. McVey said for the other drug sale groups, the time to minimum parole is actually decreased but added, "We are not really diverting from the other drug sale groups, except for the D drug sale, which is only 10 cases out of 116." Senator James stated that was because the sentence was reduced in those cases by an average 2.1 months. Mr. McVey said that had to do with the "40 percent rule" kicking in, i.e., the minimum time can only be 40 percent of the maximum sentence. He added the impact is "not that significant." Mr. McVey indicated a big group included on the chart was B driving under the influence (DUI) traffic, which is almost 300 admissions each year, between female and male inmates. He added most of those admissions are "DUIs with significant bodily harm," and the time to parole would be increased an average of 6 « months for the males and 7 « for the females. Mr. McVey stated that would translate to approximately 150 beds by fiscal 1998. He added that was the "1- year minimum kicking up...assuming the judges give these guys the same sort of sentence under the maximum now...the minimum has to be at least 1 year." Mr. McVey again referenced the chart on page 4 of Exhibit C, and said the other group which was significant in terms of having a big impact on parole minimums and admissions was the B violent group, with their time to minimum parole increased to 8 months more than before. He said that impact would take longer to occur, because it is at least 3 or 4 years before a person who would have been released under current law would be eligible for release. Senator James stated, "What you have just hit on is the whole purpose of the bill." He said the B violent, the DUI offenses and the A murder/rape/kidnaping were the ones they wanted to increase. Mr. McVey said there was an impact on the maximum sentence changing from the current sentences. He stated, "For most of the groups it goes down slightly on the maximum end, but since parole is really driving the actual prison length of stay, the minimum sentence is far more important in terms of how long they are going to actually stay in prison." Mr. McVey added for the more severe groups, the A category groups, "...the maximum sentence is quite often increased...we are already at life and we are staying at life...." Senator Adler said some of the A category crimes reduce "life" to a maximum of 50 years. Mr. McVey answered the time served would be approximately 60% of that sentence. He said the sentence, instead of "life" would be 30 years before discharge and added, "The average life expectancy isn't much greater than 30 years." Senator Adler asked Mr. McVey is he knew of any other state which has a system of "interchangeable life...term of years sentences." He added he was not sure if that was constitutional. Mr. McVey answered, "I'm not sure." He said he had not done an impact "...where they have taken something that is currently life and have reduced it to a specific number of years." Senator James responded, "It is a specific number of years with a minimum to parole eligibility, which is the same for the minimum for life...." He added, "All we have done is to say...the judge has the discretion to impose a term of years, and the only reason we did that is so we would have parole eligibility...and good time or work time could operate on the sentence." Mr. McVey said effectively the parole minimum is still driving the prison term for most of the cases. Senator Adler said it does have an impact because "...if you have a term of years then you're not going to be on a lifetime parole." Mr. McVey said that was an impact that was 30 years into the future, and fiscally there was not much impact. He added, "If you have some part of the sentence that is affected by good time, there is an incentive for some inmates to behave better...." Senator Titus referenced the A drug sale reduction from 202 to 84 months. She asked Mr. McVey if he had indicated a 35-bed impact, rather than a 5 bed impact. Mr. McVey answered 5 was the number of admissions in the sample which showed up as "drug sale." He added, "When you translate that to beds, the rule of thumb is `population equals admissions times length of stay'." He said currently those inmates are spending 20 years, while under the proposed change the minimum length of stay would be 7 years...with a 10-year average. Mr. McVey added, "You are talking about 50 beds, 10 years into the future." He said from his point of view that was a "minimal impact." Senator Titus asked, "So it is 50 beds over 10 years if you leave it at 202?" Mr. McVey answered, "Approximately." She asked what would happen if that were dropped to an extent that was more in line with kidnap and rape, but not as extreme as murder, and not dropped as much as 84. Mr. McVey responded, "It would be marginal...maybe 10 beds in a 10-year forecast...and 20 years in the future, you may be able to see 25 or 30 beds." He said that was not what he would term a "big ticket" item in terms of actual cost. Mr. McVey again referred to "diversions." He said the diversions were based on the fiscal 1998 total number of diversions, and added they expected approximately 58 expected diversions for females and 306 expected male diversions. Mr. McVey said the sample numbers were based on the admissions during the past 12 months which he saw as being eligible for diversions. He reminded the committee these were "new commitments" only." Mr. McVey said the impacts on the chart were listed as minimum and maximum for fiscal 1998. He indicated for females with drug possession charges the impact would be 35 to 63 beds, with D property being 11 to 19 beds. Mr. McVey added the male E drug possession category would have a 210 to 389 bed impact. He said the overall impact would be 300 to 558 beds. Mr. McVey stated when he ran the "no diversion scenario" and compared that at the end of fiscal 1998, there would be an approximate 500 bed difference. Mr. McVey explained the chart set forth on page 5 of Exhibit C. He said the front part of the impact shows there are various components, and later, in July of 1999, all of the various things combine and reach an equilibrium. He added the impact would then be driven by the growth in admissions which is assumed. Senator James asked if the chart was based upon a 35 percent "parole grant" rate in the past and in the future and Mr. McVey answered it was. The chairman then stated: "If you were to base this on a 22 percent rate, you would get a lower fiscal impact." Mr. McVey concurred and said the "baseline, no change scenario would go a lot higher, but the impact of doing this proposed change would be about 100 to 150 less than what is here now." Senator James said he understood the figures were based on a 35 percent grant rate, which is in the budget. Mr. McVey agreed. He said he should explain "...there are different grant rates by offense group...the more violent groups tend to have lower grant rates, with less violent groups having higher grant rates...but [the chart] is an overall number." He said as the component of the population goes into the future, with the methodology they used, "...each offense group is using a different grant rate, so as more people are coming up for hearings, with more violent and severe offenders, the grant rate is overall effectively dropping." Mr. McVey said considering this methodology, "...the grant rate overall in future years should drop under the proposal. He added that is taken into account automatically. Mr. McVey stated he saw three phases in the minimum impact projection. He said the first phase runs from the beginning of the projection period to approximately the end of 1996 and shows a decrease. Mr. McVey said that was due to the "immediate impact of the diversions that would occur." He said beginning approximately the end of 1996, the impact of the delay to primary or initial parole eligibility would "kick in dramatically." Mr. McVey said the population would be driven up for approximately 1 « years to the end of fiscal 1998. Senator James added the early impact would be on the lower security prisoners. Mr. McVey stated the third phase would being in July, 1998. He pointed out a "dip" on the chart which lasts for approximately 1 year, due to the fact that minimum parole eligibility would be delayed. Mr. McVey said in approximately 9 months to 1 year, there would be a temporary decrease in the number of parole violator returns going back into prison, "...because you have not been sending them out to parole for that period of time. Mr. McVey indicated beginning in fiscal 1999, the parole board caseloads would begin to rise and releases to parole "...would begin to start going back out again, as the 6-month to 1-year delays start showing up." He said that was the point at which everything would start to re- equalize. Mr. McVey added at that point the projection "...becomes rather linear in terms of the impact, and is essentially growing due to the stacking effect of the longer term inmates staying longer...which is where the medium and maximum security bed needs start increasing." Senator Adler pointed out "a fairly huge difference in the maximum projected impact and the minimum...that surge from July of 1996 to 1997." Mr. McVey said that was the impact of the diversions. He added, "If the people don't get diverted...they will stay a lot longer to minimum parole eligibility than they were under current law." Mr. McVey continued, "It is sort of a double whammy...because you are not saving the bed immediately, and later on when they would have gone to parole...you are adding a bed to the impact." He said when the two projections are compared, two beds would actually be added to the impact. Senator Adler stated, "You are counting the E crimes as diverted because of the nature of the crime...the district attorneys are going to know and the judges are going to know...that if you plea-bargain a crime to an E , it is an automatic probation." He asked, "What if they catch on to that and don't plea-bargain to those crimes, and plea-bargain to the next...." Mr. McVey answered, "Some of these diversions will definitely happen...what portion, I can't tell you." He added there would be a lot of considerations which would have to go in to trying to factor that situation and stated, "There would probably be an increased pretrial time which would factor into more jail credits...but would also increase pretrial jail populations." Mr. McVey said they would have to study this factor more in depth. Senator James stated it was important to understand that the maximum projected impact is "purely theoretical" because it assumes no diversions. Mr. McVey said their purpose was to give an idea of "what the most upper bounds would be...and it won't happen that way if the law doesn't affect the way it was given to me to project." Senator James continued, "The way we have done this bill, and the reason we have categorized crimes...is so you would have that graduated scale." He referred to the persons who would be pleading to E crimes and who would be diverted to programs and stated, "I don't think there is that much of a disincentive for prosecutors to go ahead and do those same kind of pleas, because we have made sure that everything in the D category is just the next step up." Senator James continued: If the traditional thing is for a prosecutor to plead down to the next level crime...as this new crime bill is adopted and we start understanding crimes in terms of A, B, C, D or E, then they would be going down to E from something that is a less serious drug crime, which may be fully appropriate to be diverted to a program. You have to understand also that I have heard...prosecutors and other people around the state talk about a lot of things that are considered trafficking...are really very low quantities for Nevada...they could be considered possessory quantities...it also may be appropriate to plead those to treatment or drug court. Senator James said the options which are made available in the bill under category E are not just counseling and treatment. He said there was home incarceration, close security probation, the drug court, etc., and added prison is not the only alternative for treating people who have serious drug problems. There were no further questions posed to Mr. Jones and Mr. McVey. The next person to speak to the committee was Jerry Keller, Sheriff, Clark County, Nevada. He stated he represents law enforcement for the incorporated City of Las Vegas and the unincorporated area of Clark County. Sheriff Keller stated: I came today because this is extremely important to me as a leader of law enforcement, and to me as a police officer. Very often, when laws are made, the police are left out of the formula. I'm not willing to let that happen. There has been a tremendous amount of discussion nationwide about `crime bill of last year...crime bill of this year.' A lot of partisan issues flow through those. I think we have to eliminate all of that and come back down to the safety. What happens is that when people make these bills and commit to spend money, they forget to ask the people who this tool is designed for...and that is the community and the police...the front side of the justice system. When you ask a street cop, `What do you need to make your neighborhood safer?', they will tell you just a couple of things...what they need is the opportunity to spend more time at a given incident to fix that incident, rather than have to come back to it...so they don't have to repeat their response. The second thing they tell you is that they want to have to catch criminals only once. They don't want to have to catch them time and time again. They don't want to have to spend their energy...their resources...out there protecting the community, the people, their property and their rights, and have to face these criminals, and learn them by first name over a repetitive process. And so, we need something for enforcement...we need something for intervention, and we need something for prevention. And just as Neighborhood Watch and DARE and our new multi-unit housing philosophy are going to make a difference and prevent crimes, so does incarceration of a crime violent offender keep them from committing and preying on our community and our streets. Sheriff Keller stated he was not a criminologist and did work on the corrections side of the law. He said, "I can tell you that we have got to have some more tools in the increasingly complex world of criminal offender incarceration and processing with the justice system." He stated during the past year, there were approximately 10,000 arrests by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (METRO) for narcotics. Sheriff Keller said law enforcement seized 2.7 tons of drugs in Las Vegas/Clark County, which is METRO's jurisdiction. He said the department submitted 5,000 of those cases to the district attorney's office for prosecution. Sheriff Keller continued: During that same time, we had 9,415 murders, kidnaps, robberies, sexual assaults and aggravated assault...felony assaults. We have got to be able to identify and catch those violent offenders and have them prosecuted, taken before the public bench...prosecuted and taken from society. James Q. Wilson once said that punishment doesn't have to be severe...it has to be swift and certain. And when we correct behavior, we have to make sure that there is a consequence for a criminal act. And if instead, we have a system that positively reinforces the negative behavior of these offenders, then they will continue to offend. ... I know from the police perspective, that when we catch someone, we don't want to have to catch them again before they commit another crime. Sheriff indicated he appeared before the committee to speak to this issue on behalf of a group of southern law enforcement chiefs, "...the chief of every incorporated city...the University police...the school district police...the Clark County park rangers and the Clark County Metropolitan Police Department. Senator James stated when they received the fiscal analysis, which indicates what the projection on the prison population would be as an effect of this bill, one of the reactions of prison officials was that "...this is going to be a hardening of the prison population." He continued: You [indicated] there were 9,415 murders, rapes and assaults in Clark County...those are the people who are going to be making up a larger share of the prison population. So, when you look at this fiscal analysis and you go out 10 years...it has gone up by about 300, through that hardening process. That is 300 additional people who are still in prison, occupying prison beds for those kinds of crimes in large part...who will not be out there committing part of this group of serious crimes we were chasing after. Senator James asked Sheriff Keller to comment on how that would affect his policing ability. Sheriff Keller responded: "If we take our 60% of the 300 people...that is 180 hard-core violent criminals that won't be on the streets of Clark County...or on the streets of Las Vegas where I live...where the people that put me in office live." Sheriff Keller stated he would be attending the first meeting of the "regional jail commission", which consists of representatives of "every government in the valley," which will address the issue of incarceration of criminal offenders, "...not only for today, but for 5, 10 and 20 years out, because we happen to be the fastest growing valley in America." He said they would be looking at the issue of bringing resources, thoughts and expertise together in that area so they can have an alternative structure for incarceration, using the Clark County Detention facility for the most hard- core, high-risk offenders who are awaiting trial. Sheriff Keller added they would suggest eventually using the city municipal facilities of Henderson, North Las Vegas and Las Vegas for the non-violent, "less threat" misdemeanor inmates, and felony inmates who are non-threatening and nonviolent. He indicated when a new detention facility is built in southern Nevada, it "will fit that middle ground." Sheriff Keller said currently there are approximately 1,750 inmates housed in the Clark County Detention facility. He said it was important to recognize that there are people who commit a violent crime who might be one-time offenders, and there are people who commit violent crimes that are chronic offenders,"...that are every day showing absolute disregard for the laws, the structure and the members of our community, and have to be identified, targeted and placed in a position where they can no longer harm the members of our community." He said he was committed to that issue. Senator James asked Sheriff Keller how he presently saw the situation with the "war on drugs" in Clark County? Sheriff Keller responded it was increasing, and added the changes they are seeing now are with the types of drugs they confiscate. Sheriff Keller continued: We have developed some diversified strategies, not only going after the big drug dealers with task force concept, but reforming a street narcotics team that we had back in 1986, to go after those people who are selling drugs on the street corners. They are the true criminals in the drug trade in the valley, because they are the ones who sell drugs to our kids. They are the ones that are hanging around, stepping in peoples' paths and selling the drugs. And I am a very strong believer in assistance providing rehabilitation for those people who are afflicted with addiction. Sheriff Keller said in 1984, as a lieutenant with METRO, he helped implement a program called the police employee assistance program. He said they were going to be the police officers' outreach program, but added, "That is called POOP, so we were PAP." He said they were there to deal with the "wear and tear of carrying a badge in Las Vegas, and the dynamics of the families that impact human beings...to deal with the habits and addictions of alcohol and prescribed medication...." Senator James asked if it was true that one way to try to reduce the drug problem is to "try and go at the users...and try to reduce the supply. Sheriff Keller indicated that was correct. He said when we do street level enforcement, they go not only after the sellers, but the consumers as well. He added, "We must reach that consumer population...it is a matter of supply and demand. Senator James stated: What I understand in the current system...even the consumers of drugs...are getting prison time or kind of going in and out of the prison pretty fast. When we took tours of the prisons...we found out that the use of drugs in the prison...that the prisons are full of drugs. So they go in addicts...they use drugs in there...they stay addicts...they come out addicts...they go right back out to do what they were doing before...so you are arresting the same people, over and over again...for the same kinds of drug crimes. Senator Adler asked Sheriff Keller if he was aware that under this proposal, he will have a bigger pool of those people on the streets in Las Vegas, living on probation. Sheriff Keller responded they had 9,415 violent crimes in his jurisdiction last year, and he wished "every one of them was in a prison cell." Senator Adler indicated there would be a tradeoff, and Sheriff Keller responded: There is absolutely a tradeoff. We can buy any kind of justice system we want...we are just going to have to spend the money. I am not here to speak for anything but the police side. I am telling you what tools we need...I am telling you our perspective, and then I am going to leave it to the Legislature to make the laws. I simply want to let you know that from the southern police chiefs of the State of Nevada, that we are committed that there has to be something done to allow us to give our officers the tools...whether it is through the prison system or however...to not have to cater to these people again and re-expend resources that are so valuable in any public service. Senator Adler indicated the nonviolent criminals "would still be out there." Senator James responded: They are not necessarily just out there...they are on probation...they are in programs which if they violate them they go to prison. And they are going to actually more prison...if they commit an E category offense, which is what the senator is referring to...and they are in some program...and if they violate the conditions of their probation...they will go to prison then. They will be in prison twice as long as they did before. Sheriff Keller said he knew that Judge Lehman "...has had some very good success with the drug court." He added in speaking with Stew Bell, the district attorney of Clark County, he has learned that probation is a very valuable tool, because "...it gives that umbrella...that monitoring...that structure for someone who has obviously always demonstrated they don't have a good structure and don't follow the rules..." Senator Titus referenced Sheriff Keller's remarks that the drug problem is "getting worse in Clark County and that they are making a more concerted effort to go after the big sellers, as well as the consumers." Sheriff Keller corrected Senator Titus and said he had indicated they were diversifying their strategy and going after the problem in a three-tier approach, i.e., "...those who bring it in...in the carload, those who sell the rocks to our kids on the corner and those who are in the middle...those one, two and three kilo dealers." He continued: "We have to have a diversified strategy. The nature of drugs are changing. We are seeing more PCP now...we are seeing more LSD now...and that is scary, because the behavior on those substances...we have got to stop the flow...we stop that by the sellers." Senator Titus said that was what she wanted to get at, because she agrees that the small time possessor, the first- time user and the paraphernalia possessor are people who should be diverted from the system. She stated: I am looking at the big traffickers and the big sellers, and this bill reduces their penalty considerably. Now we heard this morning, that if we put it back to where it was...or if we even just increase it slightly over what it is this bill, it will just have a minimal economic impact. So I am looking at some things to put back...well, a stricter penalty on those big sellers...those sellers who are giving it to our children on the schoolyards. Would you be opposed to that...or would you be supportive of that? Sheriff Keller responded the majority of the large drug sellers go through the federal system for prosecution. He stated: "We have a three-fold mission: to protect the people, their property and their rights, to arrest suspects and to prevent crimes. That is what we do." Senator Titus then referenced Sheriff Keller's comment that 60% of the 300 violent criminals would be off the streets if the legislation goes into effect. She said the big sellers would also be "off the street." Sheriff Keller responded: If I had my `druthers'...I would have them all off the streets, but I don't. So we have some tough choices to make as a state...we have some tough choices to make as a county. That is why I am forming a regional jail commission. I think we miss the boat if we don't take a big bite this legislative session. And, I came up 3 weeks ago to support...the sentencing commission, because I think that is going to give us the opportunity to have the experts research these laws and the penalties. ... We have to make a choice. And I would rather have a rapist in prison, or someone who is out there committing robberies, than anybody else. Senator Titus said she did not believe there was anybody on the committee that would disagree. She continued: "You can even increase the penalties beyond what they are in this bill, and still keep them lower than kidnaping, rape and murder. I think perhaps there is some middle ground between maybe reducing as much as in this bill, and going back to the extreme of what was there before." Senator James thanked Sheriff Keller for appearing before the committee. Senator James then indicated he wished to entertain suggestions regarding where the committee "would like to have these penalties," as he had earlier in the week. He said he had no objection to making adjustments regarding A trafficking. Senator James stated he had earlier voiced concern that the penalties are "...kept in line with what we are trying to do with keeping the murder, rape...the most violent crimes...the toughest." He said they may be able to increase judges' discretion. The chairman asked the members to remember that the number "...are the way the fiscal analysts have determined what the prison stay would be, based on parole eligibility. He continued: The major drug sales under A which we are having so much discussion about are all life sentences...and all we have done is to go from a certain minimum with no probation or suspended sentence or parole to keeping the same thing...to a 7 year minimum...a 5 year minimum...and placing it at life with a 5 year minimum is the same penalty as murder. Senator James reiterated, "If the committee members want to change those parole eligibility dates, then let's talk about it." Senator Titus stated, I heard you state several times about the suggestions not coming forward, but often times you need more information before you can make suggestions. I would remind you that you served on the interim committee to rewrite the whole criminal code and this didn't come out of that committee, it came later, after you got more information. That is why perhaps the specific suggestion did not come on the day we were rushed to get a bill draft request out. Senator Titus suggested regarding the sale of drugs in category A, "...if you go from 5 to 7 on selling to a minor, second offense...on trafficking greater than 10,000 pounds of marijuana, and trafficking...greater than 400 grams...if you go to 7, that is 46 percent." She continued if trafficking, schedule 1, was taken to 10 years instead of 7, it would be no change in the 40 percent rule. Senator Titus said in that case, all of the penalties would be higher than they are in the bill, but lower than the penalty for kidnaping, rape and murder. The next person to speak was J. Charles Thompson, Assistant District Attorney, Clark County. Mr. Thompson indicated he would speak for the district attorney, Stewart Bell, who could not be present. He said he would specifically address the subject of trafficking in controlled substances which are prosecuted in Clark County. Mr. Thompson explained the key to a definition of such trafficking was the amount of the substance in a person's possession, "...whether you are moving it, possessing it or selling it...." He said simple possession of a large quantity of a controlled substance is, in fact, "trafficking in a controlled substance." Mr. Thompson added there was one statute which was used exclusively for trafficking offenses, i.e., Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 453.3385. He said that was the "basic trafficking statute" with three levels: "A baby trafficking statute, which is 4 grams or more; a mid-level, which is 14 to 28 grams; and a big trafficking statute, which is over 28 grams." He reiterated the key to the entire statute was the quantity of a substance in a person's possession. Mr. Thompson demonstrated by showing the committee a "baggie" with 4.8 grams of an uncontrolled powder/substance, which represented the quantity a person could possess and receive a 3-to 20-year prison sentence. Senator Titus indicated what she had been discussing was not that type of trafficking contained on the A list, but rather was speaking of a "major trafficker." Mr. Thompson then showed a sample of 42 grams of an uncontrolled powder and said, "If this was a schedule 1 substance, it would contain enough to make me guilty of possession under the major trafficking statute, for which I am told there are five people in prison at the present time." Senator James agreed. He then stated to Senator Titus: "I asked the judge to address the drugs in general...he wasn't that concerned with an A drug sale, because they don't use it." Senator James added: "What he was saying was that it was the middle ones that they use, and he has some suggestions on that." Senator Titus stated she wanted it clear that, "...when I am talking about trafficking, I am talking about A trafficking, the minor, not the baby crimes, and the excuse that we don't use it because we don't need it, puts us on opposite sides of the argument...." Mr. Thompson referenced schedule 2 trafficking and stated Clark County has "almost no schedule 2 trafficking offenses, because schedule 2 drugs are not the kind of drugs that people want a lot of...so we really don't care what you do with those offenses...." He said schedule 1 drugs include heroin, metaphetamine, and cocaine and make up 98 percent of the drug trafficking offenses. Mr. Thompson referred to the "baby trafficking offense" under NRS 453.3385, and said the penalty in the bill draft was fixed at 1 to 5 years. He said it was the recommendation of the district attorney's office that it be set at 1 to 10 years. Mr. Thompson said a lot of the individuals who are actually convicted plea bargain that type of case. He said they were the persons who were found to be in possession of 28 grams of a controlled substance, "...and end up pleading guilty as part of a plea bargain to a `small level trafficking.'" Mr. Thompson added some of those individuals "probably deserve a harsher sentence than a simple 1 to 5...the judge will know what the defendant was really guilty of...we would suggest the discretion be broader." Senator McGinness referred to earlier testimony that some persons buy a larger amount of drugs "because they get a good deal...not because they are traffickers, but because they have a bad habit." He said if those persons were caught with that larger amount of drugs, they could be "bumped up," even though they were not a "big-time dealer." Senator McGinness indicated a judge could then have the discretion to utilize the lower end of the penalty scale. Mr. Thompson agreed and said it would be easier for the district attorney to plea bargain a case "...when we know we can talk the judge into a substantial sentence." He added many of the individuals who are found guilty of baby trafficking offenses, "...are actually users...users who, in order to get drugs for their habit, go out and sell them and then use either the proceeds or a portion of the drugs for their own personal use." Mr. Thompson said "unfortunately for them, they end up selling to undercover narcotics officers." Senator James asked if they changed that level to a "1 to 10," they would have to "kick up" the sentence on the B category, which is currently 2 to 10 years. Mr. Thompson referenced page 7 of the bill draft and suggested trafficking, schedule 1, should be 2 to 20 years, instead of 2 to 10 years. He added, "We want to keep as many drug traffickers and major suppliers...in prison as we can." Mr. Thompson said their office had made an agreement with Kathryn Landreth of the Office of the United States Attorney, which prosecutes most of the major drug traffickers. Mr. Thompson concluded: "If I have a choice of putting people in prison for offenses, I want murder, rape, robbery and other violent offenders to go to prison first." Senator Washington asked, regarding trafficking, schedule 1, category A: "I don't want the perception to be that we are soft on drug trafficking...that is not the intent...but we want to be realistic as to what is currently happening with the prison population." He said based on the information they received, with a 12-month projection, "...the 7 years was actually in line with what was happening...they were currently serving 7 years." Mr. Thompson answered if an individual is sentenced to 25 years for a schedule 1 trafficking offense, it was his understanding that the individual will serve approximately 7 or 8 years. Glen Whorton, Classification and Planning Specialist, State of Nevada Department of Prisons, approached the committee to respond. Mr. Whorton stated if a person has a 25 year sentence for trafficking, with a 25 year parole eligibility, "...they will discharge that sentence without ever receiving consideration for parole, because the credits count toward the discharge...they do not count towards the parole eligibility." He said that fact is consistent throughout the application of statutory minimum laws. Mr. Whorton said generally, if a person has a 25 year sentence and are maintained inside of an institution, "...they will discharge that sentence after serving approximately 60 percent of the sentence." Senator Titus pointed out that 60 percent of 25 years was not 7 years. She continued: Everybody agrees that murderers and rapists should be in there...we all agree with that...everybody agrees that this will be of minimal impact on the economic system. Everybody agrees that big traffickers are bad...you even want to bump up the penalty for bigger traffickers. What is the problem of changing this from 7 years to 10 years. It keeps the 40 percent in place. If we don't have that many people... most of them are in the federal prisons anyway...but those we do have we will keep there a little longer. We will keep them off the streets. What is the problem with that? Mr. Thompson answered he perceived no problem with that suggestion. Senator Washington stated he felt the problem is "...that when the statements are made that we are soft on drug traffickers and drug trafficking...and I am part of that implication...I don't want that label or that tag placed on me." He continued: "I am not soft on crime, nor am I soft on drug traffickers." He said he had tried to reflect what was currently happening in the prison system and added, "If they want to bump it up to 10 years that is fine." Senator Washington also said for the record: When it was first proposed on Monday and the question was asked, `Does anybody want to raise it?', I first made the amendment or the move to raise it, and didn't get a second on it. Based on the testimony and the comments of the witnesses that came forward, I basically said that the 25-year minimum plus the 7- year minimums that we have on our proposed sentence really didn't make a difference. So we rescinded the motion, based on the information that was received. I am not soft on crime. I'm probably harder than anybody at this table, because I know the effects...I know the causes...I know the devastation that it causes in the community, because I have seen it first- hand, and I deal with it. So I don't want the perception to go out...that's why I am in objection. Senator James asked Mr. McVey to approach the table and respond to the suggested change to 10 years. Mr. McVey indicated his estimate would be that the new average minimum would be approximately 31.4 months for the C drug sale category, "...given that the drug trafficking range would go from 1 to 5 years to 1 to 10 years." Senator Adler indicated the B category had many sentences which he said represented duplicate sentencing and stated he felt they could be compressed into ranges of 3 to 20 years, 2 to 15 years and 1 to 10 years, thereby "cutting down the categories." He said he did not feel there was a real distinction between a 2 to 10 year sentence and a 1 to 10 year sentence. Senator Adler suggested a "neater package" could be developed by setting forth categories such as B-1, B-2 and B-3. Senator James recessed the hearing at 11:00 a.m. because the Senate was in session. The meeting resumed at 12:40 a.m. Senator James reiterated Mr. Thompson's recommendation that adjustments be made to increase a judge's discretion with no increase in the "bottom years," but with an increase in the maximums on mid-level trafficking. The chairman indicated he also concurred in the request of Senator Titus to increase the term to 10 years on the "big trafficking" category, which would bring it closer to where it is now. He also indicated he would discuss Senator Adler's suggestion separately. Senator James asked Mr. McVey to comment on the possible fiscal impact with respect to the suggested changes. Mr. McVey said if the range were set at 1 to 10 years, "...the 40 percent rule on a 10-year sentence would translate to 4 years. He said his earlier calculation was that those persons would serve 3 years. Mr. McVey continued: "Assuming that they would still get 3-year minimum to parole...the overall minimum would average out to 31.4 months." He said he would have to do a case-by-case comparison, "...to see how many guys are actually getting the 3- year minimum now...." Mr. McVey continued: "Going from 2 to 10 [years] to 2 to 20 [years]...would effectively kick the average minimum sentence for that group up to about 38.5 months." He said a 20-year sentence with the 40 percent rule would translate to an 8-year sentence. Mr. McVey also stated: "The people who are currently [serving] 10-year minimums, I am assuming would go to the full 8 years. For the people who are currently [serving] 5-year minimums, I would assume they would go to 5 years, instead of the full 8 [years]." Senator James said the only way to approximate what they were doing now, in order to "keep it neutral," would be to "...come in between 6 and 10 somewhere." He said if they used a 1 to 10 formula on the C crimes (trafficking), there would be a neutral impact. Mr. McVey answered compared to existing law the time would expand from 24 months to approximately 31 months under the altered proposal, "...because of the way the mix of that group is set up." Senator James asked Mr. Thompson to comment on the possibility of a 1- to 6- year sentence. Mr. Thompson answered he did not "feel strongly" about the 1- to 10-year suggestion, but felt it was a good idea to give the court more discretion. He said he believed that Mr. McVey was "making an assumption" that judges are going to sentence individuals who are today getting a 3-year minimum, to approximately a minimum of 3 years, and added he did not feel that was accurate. Mr. Thompson stated he thought there were a number of judges who felt that "some individuals who are convicted of possession of a baggie of controlled substance, probably do not deserve a minimum of 3 years." He added he felt there may be more 1- and 2-year mandatory minimums under the new legislation. He further stated if he was correct in his assumption that there would be more mandatory minimum sentences of 1 and 2 years, "...I think that will reduce that fiscal impact." He continued, "On those few cases where you do have somebody that had actually been possessing substantial quantities...and plea bargains to a `baby trafficking' charge...the court would have more discretion to impose a 4- to 10-[year sentence.]." Senator James wondered if it would be better to "either make it a 1- to 6-[year sentence] or leave the C category alone...and to up the penalty for the B drug sales." Mr. Thompson responded, "We can work it either way you want to." Mr. McVey stated he had no way of telling "how many of the guys who are currently getting the 3-year minimum sentence in the group would get something less if the judges had the discretion to give them something less." He said that was an issue that needed a "better, more precise estimate." Senator Adler stated he agreed with the concept of a 1- to 6- year sentence. Senator Titus asked if that would not "murk it up." Senator Washington concurred with Senator Adler. Senator James asked to move the question regarding that issue and the issue of going from a 2- to 10-year sentence to a 2- to 20-year sentence. He suggested increasing the discretion by going to a 2- to 15-year sentence on the mid-level trafficking statute. Mr. Thompson answered he approved. Senator James referred to level 1 trafficking for large quantities of controlled substances, and the suggestion by Senator Titus to go to a 10- year minimum on NRS 453.385 under category A. He said he would accept a motion regarding the above suggestions. SENATOR TITUS SO MOVED. SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR PORTER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * Mr. Thompson then stated he would ask for more court discretion regarding the offense of "aggravated stalking," with a proposed 1- to 6-year sentence. He said they would request a 1- to 10- year requirement. In addition, Mr. Thompson stated, they would like to see "drive-by shootings," now proposed as a 2- to 10- year category B felony, changed to a category B, 2- to 20 year sentence range, since "...it is nothing more than attempted murder." Senator James asked how that could be prosecuted since "attempt means you have to have a specific intent." Mr. Thompson said if specific intent could not be proven, "...it could be proven as a drive-by shooting...and those people need special attention." Senator James asked if the committee members had specific questions regarding Mr. Thompson's requests. Senator Titus answered she agreed that "drive-by shooting needs special attention" and supported the suggestion. She said taking into consideration the other legislation regarding aggravated stalking, she would not be in favor of changing that portion of the bill. Mr. Thompson stated he supported a commission which would look at the entire sentencing plan. Senator James asked for a motion regarding the increase in sentencing range for drive-by shootings. SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO CHANGE THE DRIVE-BY SHOOTING SENTENCING RANGE TO 2 TO 20 YEARS. SENATOR LEE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR PORTER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * Senator James moved to Senator Adler's remarks regarding the varied subcategories set forth under B. Senator Adler reiterated he believed the category could be "streamlined." He said it would be "cleaner" if either a 2- to 20-year or 3- to 20-year level was set forth, instead of 2- to 15-[year], 1- to 10-[year] and 1- to 6-[year] categories. Senator Adler stated this was for efficiency purposes to aid the prosecution, defense and the judges in the sentencing process. Senator James indicated he would like to keep the 5- to 20-year range, since that has been set forth for habitual criminals, racketeering and using a minor to furnish drugs. Senator Adler asked if the judge would not "give them a sentence of 20 [years] anyway, which means they would have to do one-quarter...or 5 years." Senator Washington stated he understood what Senator Adler was trying to do, but said he wished to refer back to the previous comment that "...once again we have tried to take a comprehensive look at the judicial system and come up with a package that we can get off the floor this session." He said if a sentencing commission wants to go back and review that in category B, he sees no problem. Senator Adler responded the committee should also be trying to make the provisions easier to understand. Senator Washington responded: I understand that also, but basically once again, we went through the crimes...we basically tried to reflect what is currently going on in the prison system, and based on the sentences that the judges were imposing for these felons....and after the bill does become law, if the sentencing commission wants to go back and recategorize these to 2 to 20, 2 to 15, 1-to 10, and 1 to 6...that's fine. Senator James stated: Just so you understand...we have the 2's, the 3's and the 5's, ...because we were making distinctions which were made under the current law. We have made similar distinctions...a little more uniform. That is where the different numbers came from. We have tried to preserve the distinctions they have made policies, so we wouldn't have to rework the policy behind every one of these statutes. Senator James indicated he felt perhaps these issues regarding category B could be deferred to further study. Senator Adler stated his point was that there was no difference between setting out a 5- to 20-year sentence and a 1- to 20-year sentence, and added "If it is a serious offense involving a child and drugs, the judge is going to give him the 20 [years]...there is no reason to try and make these distinctions and ranges that really aren't going to matter." He said his suggestion would simplify the system for everybody, since there would be a broader range for the judge to deal with. Senator Titus pointed out Senator Adler's proposal was a "major change," and asked for time to consider the suggestions. Senator James indicated that was a possibility, but added, "This is the reason we came back today...we are pretty far down the road and this is a major change...we may have to do a major rewrite." He indicated he would, however, take the matter up in the hearing to be held the next day. There was no further discussion regarding the truth-in- sentencing legislation. Senator Titus indicated she wished to discuss two bills which did not need to be pursued further in the committee, and asked that they be withdrawn. SENATE BILL 381: Revises provisions concerning domestic violence. SENATE BILL 382: Requires court to include order to withhold or assign wages in certain orders for support of child. SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 381 and S.B. 382. SENATOR LEE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR PORTER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * There was no further business to come before the committee, and Senator James adjourned the hearing at 1:05 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: --------------------------------- ------------------- Marilyn Hofmann, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Mark A. James, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Judiciary April 26, 1995 Page