MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Sixty-eighth Session May 1, 1995 The Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 9:30 a.m., on Monday, May 1, 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 Ernest E. Adler Senator Dina Titus Senator O. C. Lee STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Allison Combs, Senior Research Analyst Lori M. Story, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Judy Jacoboni, Chapter President, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Lyon County Chapter Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens Ben Graham, Chief Deputy, Clark County District Attorney, Legislative Representative, Lobbyist, Nevada District Attorneys Association Glen Whorton, Classification and Planning Specialist, Department of Prisons SENATE BILL 416: Makes various changes regarding sentencing of persons convicted of felonies. The day's hearing was dedicated to Senate Bill (S.B.) 416 which is the truth-in- sentencing bill crafted by the Senate Committee on Judiciary, the chairman said. He passed out copies of the amendment to the bill (Exhibit C) which was discussed at hearing the previous week. Judy Jacoboni, Chapter President, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), Lyon County Chapter, was the first to testify. She spoke from a prepared statement (Exhibit D) which is attached. Ms. Jacoboni noted the group's support of the bill because it restores the public trust by providing a sentence that fits the crime. Next, Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens, spoke. She offered her concurrence with the statement made by Ms. Jacoboni. She raised an issue dealing with section 214 of the bill (page 87), which allows the court to modify the original sentence imposed on a person who is brought before the court for a probation violation. She noted her organization has great concern about this provision, because a person who violates the terms of their probation shows a definite lack of respect for the law. This lack of respect should not be rewarded by a reduction of the sentence, the witness opined. She asked the committee to consider deleting this provision. Senator Adler noted this particular provision was one requested by the state's judges. If provides them with the discretion to imprison an individual to a term they deem reasonable for the violation, rather than for the entire original sentence. The need to modify the sentence, the senator explained, arises because many times a judge will impose a much longer sentence of probation than they would an actual prison sentence. This is to ensure a long period of supervision, but is not really intended to be the amount of time spent in prison, under any circumstances, he continued. Ms. Lusk stated she understands the reasoning, but feels this still is a form of reward for violating their probation. Her organization is of the opinion, she said, that the sentence imposed by the court should be the sentence served, especially in the instance of a probation violation. She observed there are several options available to the judge, including residential confinement or regimental discipline. She stated the judge already has the option to continue the probation if he or she does not feel the probation violator really should go to prison. A reduction of the sentence is completely without justification, she emphasized. The chairman noted there was a hearing at which he agreed to draft a bill proposed by the administration into this bill. It deals with the same issue, he pointed out, and was supported by a number of the judges in the state. Particularly, former judge Charles Thompson testified in support of this provision, Senator James explained. This is one of the places in the bill that allows the judges some measure of discretion. He stressed they are accountable to the voters who can assess their performance and vote accordingly. He thanked Ms. Lusk for her input. He called for further witnesses. Ben Graham, Chief Deputy, Clark County District Attorney, Lobbyist, Nevada District Attorneys Association, took the floor to offer further support for the provision Ms. Lusk was addressing. He stated that in some cases, though not frequently, the judge will impose a sentence of an inordinate length, the sentence is then probationed in the hopes that the "big hammer hanging over their head will make them toe the mark on probation." Subsequently, the defendant is brought before the court where the judge wishes to revoke the probation, but not actually send the person to prison for the "inordinate sentence." This provision will allow the court to make adjustments, if their original judgment of the individual fails, and they are returned to court. There were no further witnesses to testify on the bill. The chairman called for comments from the committee members. Senator Adler presented a chart (Exhibit E) of Nevada Department of Prison populations from 1980 and projected through 2000. There are indicators marking various changes in the law, showing what impact these changes have had on the prison population. He noted the biggest impact was brought by changing parole eligibility from one-quarter of the sentence to one-third. The senator reviewed the various changes in the population as brought about by the changes in the law. He noted the chart provides an historical view of what happens when laws have been passed. He pointed out the 1991 removal of the 1 year minimum sentence did not have a large impact on the population. This is because people are not paroled before 1 year very often, Senator Adler observed. Senator James noted the 1 year minimum is being returned with S.B. 416. Senator Adler agreed, wondering what impact it might have. The chairman pointed to 1993, which shows one of the biggest growth rates. He observed there was no change in the law at that point. Senator Adler speculated this growth reflects a continuation in the parole eligibility change in 1991. This is "where it is starting to kick-in there," he remarked. Senator Adler asked Glen Whorton, Classification and Planning Specialist, Department of Prisons, to comment on the chart. The chair asked if Mr. Whorton had prepared the chart. He replied the chart was prepared by the Classification and Planning Division of the Department of Prisons. Senator James asked what the population projections are based on. Mr. Whorton noted it is based on current projections. This projection was done in March of 1995, which assumes the Governor's bill implementing an expansion of residential confinement and the implementation of the Life Skills program. Mr. Whorton, indicating the fairly steady increase in the projected population, noted that projections are made on the assumption that things will remain basically the same. Senator James confirmed this projection was based on the current policy. Mr. Whorton agreed. Senator Adler wondered if the large increase in the early 1980s is due to the change in the parole laws. The witness replied the difficulty in commenting on this question lies in the fact there is no state planning agency which would isolate the causes of such fluxes. He speculated that "logic would tell you the primary factor there would be the change in the parole eligibility and that that change would have an immediate impact." Senator Adler asked when the department started using National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) for projections. Mr. Whorton replied they started using them in about 1983-1984. This was because the population was growing so rapidly, the administration felt a need to predict the need for facilities in the future. The NCCD also instituted the prisoner classification system in use by the department, which assists in the projections. Senator Titus questioned the witness to confirm her understanding that the projection is based on the failure of S.B. 416. Mr. Whorton replied the chart shows "real numbers" up to 1995, after that it is based on the current laws and policies. It does not take into account the measure before the committee presently, he stated. Senator Titus referred to the chart provided by NCCD, wondering how the two charts compare. There followed discussion about the two charts, and how the various figures would fall on each one. Mr. Whorton commented that comparing the two was like "comparing apples and oranges in terms of the way the scales are." Senator Porter asked if it is possible to incorporate the two charts onto one so the committee can compare the different projections. Mr. Whorton replied it is possible and offered to have the process effected. Senator James reminded the committee that NCCD would be providing new figures and charts based on the changes made by the committee and taking into account the Governor's proposals for residential confinement and Life Skills program. Mr. Whorton concurred, noting it would be necessary to evaluate the latest projections in order to "determine what the impact would be upon those Life Skills and residential confinement estimates." This would determine the projections do not allow for "double dipping" of the populations in those programs, he added. He asked if Senator Porter wanted the final figures incorporated into his requested chart. The senator concurred. Senator James referred the committee's attention to draft #11 of the crimes category chart for the bill (Exhibit F) and the amendment to the bill (Exhibit C). He explained the amendment deals with crimes committed in prison that would otherwise be category E crimes. This makes them into category D crimes, he explained. Additionally, the amendment deals with a change to the crime of trafficking in explosives, changing the maximum to 5 years. He called for a motion to amend and do pass S.B. 416. SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 416. SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION. Senator Titus asked if the new figures would be available before the bill was moved to the Senator floor. The chairman assured the senator these figures would be available for study before the bill was presented to the entire house. Senator Adler questioned what would happen if an adjustment became necessary due to the fiscal note. He stated he preferred not to do such amendments on the Senate floor. Senator James opined the bill is at a point, with the adjustments already made, to bring the bill where it meets the objectives of the committee. He agreed it is important the members have the final numbers before floor discussion, but he speculated they will not affect the committee's action. There have been conversations with NCCD which indicate there will be a "softening of the spike" because of the incorporation of the administration's proposed residential confinement and Life Skills program. Senator Adler asked how that bill is faring in the Assembly, noting its implications for S.B. 416. Senator James noted "it's moving along." Senator Adler expressed concern the Senate bill might have to be drawn back in order to "put some of their stuff in this bill." Senator James opined it would not be necessary, noting the administration is aware of the pace set for S.B. 416 by the chairman. He promised all the information will be available to the senators, and declared it is time to move it out of the committee. He opined the bill is a "show stopper" with its fiscal implications that can affect budget figures and slow the progress of the entire legislative session. It needs to be taken, with all the figures, to the finance committee, he asserted. Senator Adler agreed to vote for the motion with the caveat that if some catastrophic factor arises that has not been considered, it will be addressed before moving it to the floor. Senator Titus asked for the figures. She offered to vote for the motion if the chairman will promise to provide the figures, with enough time to study them, prior to going to the floor. Senator James noted the bill will not be debated on the floor of the Senate until Thursday or Friday. He stated the committee will have the figures in committee with an opportunity to go over them and discuss them, if necessary. He voiced appreciation for the committee members' willingness to assist in defending the bill. There was no further discussion on the motion to amend and do pass S.B. 416. A vote was called. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** There was no further business before the committee and the hearing adjourned at 10:15 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Lori M. Story, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Mark A. James, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Judiciary May 1, 1995 Page