MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Sixty-eighth Session April 28, 1995 The Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 8:45 a.m., on Friday, April 28, 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 Ernest E. Adler Senator Dina Titus Senator O.C. Lee COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Senator Mike McGinness (Excused) STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Allison Combs, Senior Research Analyst Marilyn Hofmann, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Toni Angelini Rash, Member of the Public Adriene Angelini-Hoover, Member of the Public Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens Risa Berger, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau James J. Jackson, State Public Defender Karen C. Winkler, Attorney, Las Vegas, Nevada Senator James opened the meeting by asking for committee introduction of two bill draft requests (BDRs). BILL DRAFT REQUEST 8-1812: Revises provisions governing deposits held in joint tenancy. BILL DRAFT REQUEST 7-864: Expands scope of professional organization s to include homeopathic medicine. SENATOR ADLER MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 8-1812 and BDR 7-864. SENATOR LEE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS TITUS AND McGINNESS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * The chairman indicated the committee had voted at the beginning of the session to establish a cutoff date of April 15, 1995 for committee bill draft requests, which rule has been honored. He stated they had also set a deadline of May 1, 1995, for committee introductions. Senator James indicated there were still a number of committee requests pending, and asked if the cutoff date should be extended. SENATOR ADLER MOVED TO AMEND THE COMMITTEE RULES TO EXTEND THE CUTOFF DATE FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTIONS TO MAY 15, 1995. SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR McGINNESS WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * Senator James opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 416, the Senate Judiciary Proposal on Truth-in-Sentencing. SENATE BILL 416: Makes various changes regarding sentencing of persons convicted of felonies. The first person to testify was Toni Angelini Rash, Member of the Public, who read from a prepared statement, set forth herein as Exhibit C. Senator Washington stated he knew Ms. Rash's father, the person discussed in her statement, who was murdered in his deli. He said he was shocked and dismayed that such a terrible thing could happen. Senator Washington indicated the crime could have been averted, "...by making sure this person [the murdered] was locked up. He thanked Ms. Rash, a member of the Victory victims' advocate group, for providing her testimony to the committee. Senator James thanked Ms. Rash for sharing her story, and advised her that the parole hearing notification bill would be heard by the committee in the following week. The next to speak was Adriene Angelini-Hoover, Member of the Public, also the daughter of the murder victim. Ms. Angelini- Hoover presented prepared testimony, which is attached hereto as Exhibit D. Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist representing Nevada Concerned Citizens, was the next to approach the committee. Ms. Lusk stated she was in support of the efforts the committee has made resulting in S.B. 416. She said she was convinced the committee was "...doing the one thing that is absolutely essential for a significant step forward in the fight against crime." Ms. Lusk said "true-in-sentencing" meant a judge would state plainly the minimum time the criminal will spend behind bars. She added, "We are convinced that nothing else will be perceived by the people as the truth, because nothing else is the truth." Ms. Lusk reiterated she was very appreciative of the thoughtful work and consideration shown by all members of the committee in order to "identify the best solution that is available to you at this time." She added, "You have made excellent strides to making the consequences fit the crime...and to protect people from the violent invasion of their lives." Ms. Lusk said she felt the Legislature was the most effective commission on sentencing available. Senator James stated he appreciated Ms. Lusk's comments and thanked her for the time she has taken to assist in this legislation. Senator James indicated an amendment list had been prepared, and anticipated the amendments would be drafted by Monday of next week, so the committee could vote on S.B. 416. He said he had been assured by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) that the changes to the legislation would be analyzed, and a revised fiscal projection would be provided before the bill was voted upon. Senator James stated it was not his intention to ask for a "committee of the whole" in the Senate, because he felt the bill was widely understood. He added he would ask every member of the committee to assist in explanations and answering questions, if necessary. Senator James stated he was working closely with the Miller administration in order to obtain appropriate fiscal information. Senator James reviewed the major amendments which were to be prepared: (1) Senator Adler's concern about a person who is in prison because of an E category crime not having the benefit of a suspended sentence; (2) a request to bring a sentence in line regarding the crime of transportation of explosives. He said the other changes regarding drug offenses have already been completed. Senator Washington stated for the record: Not knowing the whole implications of the case, or the decision...a couple of months back...there were two young men who are currently in prison...they were on trial for the U-Haul murders [in Reno]...the murders were very brutal...they were very heinous in their crime. After being convicted and going to trial, one of the young men had asked for the death penalty... Yesterday in the news, the Nevada Supreme Court stayed the execution...Judge Mills Lane [stated] he felt it was appropriate, and because the young man has requested the death penalty, it should be carried out. After talking with Mills Lane yesterday, based on his comments, I wanted to go on record today as saying as legislators, I feel we need to support our judges and their decision, based on the information...based on the convictions...based on the trial...that they are able to make a just and sound decision... It is unfortunate that the higher courts and the lower courts have to be at odds with each other when it comes to executing felons who have committed heinous crimes and have perpetrated the community. Once again, I think it is also an injustice to the victims to have to go through this type of situation...I am in support of Mills Lane and his decision and the letter that he sent to the Nevada Supreme Court. Senator James referenced S.B. 299. SENATE BILL 299: Requires department of motor vehicles and public safety to issue permits to carry concealed firearms to certain persons. Senator James stated it had been pointed out that the state's concealed dangerous weapons statute has been declared unconstitutional by the Nevada Supreme Court as being "vague and ambiguous." He said he has requested an amendment to S.B. 299 which would address the issue of the definition of a "dangerous weapon." Senator James then referenced the "stalking" law, which sets forth felony stalking as a B, 1- to 6-year crime. He said in S.B. 416, at page 163, a crime is set out as "violating an order to stay away...once a court has had a substantive hearing and finds the existence of stalking...." Senator James indicated that crime has been set forth as a category C felony, carrying a penalty of 1 to 5 years. The chairman said this was "one category down from aggravated stalking," and involved the violation of a court's order, rather than a threat to someone's life. Senator James asked Risa Berger, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, to comment whether there would be conflict amendments generated by virtue of passage of S.B. 416. Ms. Berger responded any time a felony is created in legislation there will be a conflict. Senator James said the bill regarding the State Industrial Insurance System will have felonies created therein. Ms. Berger said the present legislation will have to then contain a category and a sentence to correspond. She stated who would receive the conflict notice would depend on "which bill passes first." Senator Porter turned to a discussion of Assembly Bill (A.B.) 151, previously discussed and voted on in the committee. ASSEMBLY BILL 151: Requires criminal defendant to serve notice to district attorney of witnesses defendant intends to call at trial and allows criminal defendant and district attorney to discover certain matters. Senator Porter reminded the committee it had voted "amend and do pass" on the bill. He said he subsequently received a letter from Robert Larsen, Assistant Public Defender of Clark County, Nevada (Exhibit E), and from James J. Jackson, Nevada State Public Defender (Exhibit F), regarding a potential fiscal impact. He asked the committee what should be done with the information, since the bill voted upon did not contain a fiscal note. Senator James indicated he would entertain a motion to reconsider. Senator Porter responded he was asking for direction and Senator James indicated perhaps the information provided should be brought to the Senate as a whole. Senator Porter indicated he had voted for the bill on the basis there was no fiscal impact, and the information received shows a potential impact of "close to $1 million. Senator James said the bill had not been reported to the floor of the Senate as yet. Senator Lee stated he would prefer to see the bill return to the committee for reconsideration than to be reported to the floor in light of the information now received. SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO RESCIND THE PREVIOUS ACTION ON A.B. 151, AND TO RECONSIDER THE BILL AT A LATER TIME. SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION. In response to a question posed by Senator Washington, Senator Porter indicated only Clark County and the Office of the State Public Defender had brought the matter of fiscal impact to his attention. Prior to taking a vote, Senator James called on James J. Jackson and asked how such a fiscal impact was created, considering Washoe County had not submitted a fiscal note. He added the Washoe County district attorney had indicated in testimony that "they already deal with 90 percent of the cases." Mr. Jackson, State Public Defender, responded he was out of town when final consideration of A.B. 151 occurred, and was then requested by Clark County to give an opinion as to what the potential fiscal impact might be. He said he based his letter on the time constraints involved, additional investigation and resources which would need to be expended because of the "exchange requirements and the dates that they are required to be done." Mr. Jackson said he believed he was conservative and Clark County has since indicated he may have underestimated the total impact. He said he thought Washoe County did not submit a fiscal note because the bill was originally introduced as having none, so the information was not sought. Senator Porter read portions of the letter contained on Exhibit C to the committee members. Senator James referenced language regarding the "21-day rule" set forth in the letter and stated: "There is not a mandate to come up with investigatory materials that you wouldn't come up with otherwise. There is a mandate to turn over within 21 days, if you have obtained it." He asked why this would involve two additional staff members "...to each of seven criminal tracks." Mr. Jackson said there was a requirement for "due diligence," and there could be a number of roadblocks thrown in the way potentially inside that 21-day window, that could result in more litigation and hearings...." He continued: "Obviously, if it is inside that 21 days, I can't imagine the district attorney not objecting...it would be their job to object to that evidence or witnesses coming in...." Mr. Jackson stated Mr. Larsen was probably trying to indicate that in the exercise of diligence, the work could require additional people, based on current caseloads. Senator Titus asked how many states have this type of extensive reciprocal discovery. Mr. Jackson responded California has the most extensive rules. Karen C. Winkler, Attorney at Law, Las Vegas, Nevada, came forward to say earlier testimony had indicated three other states had reciprocal discovery. Senator Lee stated he wished to state for the record that although he had made the motion to rescind and reconsider, he supported A.B. 151 in concept. He said he did not want anyone to assume he had "flipped" and was going the other way. Senator Porter said his concern was that they clarify the fiscal impact. Mr. Jackson said he needed to know how this legislation would impact the public defender system. He added most analysis which has been done has focused on the prison impact, but when discovery rule changes and potential sentencing changes are made, taken together with the truth-in-sentencing legislation, there will be an impact on the county and state public defenders' resources. He concluded, "You can't take these changes in a vacuum...," and added Mr. Larsen undoubtedly considered the bill in light of the overall impact of large changes in the total criminal system. Senator Porter stated, "I have here from Mr. Larsen...$800,000...not getting into other bills and impacts...." Senator Adler stated he would support rescinding the earlier motion and return of the bill to the committee for reconsideration. Senator James called for a vote on the motion. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR WASHINGTON VOTED NO. SENATOR McGINNESS WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * There being no further business to come before the committee, the hearing was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Marilyn Hofmann, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Mark A. James, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Judiciary April 28, 1995 Page