The Joint Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 8:10 a.m., on Wednesday, March 17, 1999. Chairman Bernie Anderson presided in Room 4100 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All Exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Bernie Anderson, Chairman

Mr. Mark Manendo, Vice Chairman

Ms. Sharron Angle

Mr. Greg Brower

Ms. Barbara Buckley

Mr. John Carpenter

Mr. Jerry Claborn

Mr. Tom Collins

Mr. Don Gustavson

Mrs. Ellen Koivisto

Ms. Sheila Leslie

Ms. Kathy McClain

Mr. Dennis Nolan

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall

Senator Terry Care

Senator Mark James

Senator Mike McGinness

Senator Jon Porter

Senator Dina Titus

Senator Maurice Washington

Senator Valerie Wiener

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblyman Richard Perkins, Assembly District 23

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Bobbie Gang, Legislative Representative, Nevada Woman’s Lobby

After roll was called, Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 267.

Assemblyman Richard Perkins, Assembly District 23, came forward as the sponsor of the bill to which he noted had been referred as The Child Protection Act as well as The Sherrice Iverson Bill. He began his presentation with a quote from a sign found at a bus stop in San Diego. It read, "In America, you are not required to offer food to the hungry or shelter to the homeless. There is no ordinance forcing you to visit the lonely or comfort the infirm. Nowhere in the constitution does it say you have to provide clothing for the poor. In fact, one of the nicest things about living here in America is that you really don’t have to do anything for anybody." He believed the quote exemplified some societal ills and its pertinence would become apparent. Mr. Perkins explained as a detective for the Henderson police department he investigated not just child abuse cases but all crimes against children. The concept of A.B. 267 materialized as he found there were witnesses who knew about the abuse and violence but never came forward. That disturbed him. "I believe in our constitution and liberty and we all have particular responsibilities and duties to each other. The duties and responsibilities to report crimes against children are at the top of that list." His fear materialized when on May 25, 1997, a young girl named Sherrice Iverson was raped and killed at a hotel in Primm, Nevada, by Jeremy Strohmeyer. Mr. Perkins told the committee an individual, David Cash, saw some of the actions that occurred both before and after the crime but did not come forward to help her.

Mr. Perkins continued his presentation with a review of existing statutes. He described the derivation of current American criminal law from the common law of England. He pointed out current statutes defined a principle to a crime, an accomplice, and those who aided and abetted after a crime. After reviewing those definitions, he stated David Cash’s actions did not meet any of them. Mr. Perkins stated, "It is well held that mere presence at the scene of the crime and knowledge that a crime is being committed are not sufficient to establish that the defendant aided and abetted the crime unless the jury finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is a participant and not merely a knowing spectator." He also stated Mr. Cash could not be convicted as an accessory after the fact because while he knew a crime had occurred, he did not try to conceal it or conceal the person that committed the crime.

Mr. Perkins shared with the committee two cases he investigated. One involved the sexual assault of a young girl and the other involved physical abuse of a young boy. In both cases, it was clear other adults had witnessed the abuse. He emphasized their unwillingness to aid those children by coming forward was tragic. He proceeded to further review the case of Sherrice Iverson. He explained after initial interaction in the arcade of a hotel, Mr. Strohmeyer and Sherrice gained a rapport in a short period of time. They ended up in the restroom where Mr. Strohmeyer raped and killed Sherrice. Mr. Perkins reiterated David Cash saw the interaction between the two and saw them go into the restroom. He went into the restroom during the commission of the crime and witnessed Mr. Strohmeyer covering Sherrice’s mouth and telling her to "shut up and die". After the act, Mr. Strohmeyer told Mr. Cash what he had done. Mr. Cash did nothing to assist her either before or after her murder. Since then, Mr. Cash had made statements such as, "I am no idiot. I’ll get my money out of this. She was nothing to me and there was no reason for me to get involved." Mr. Perkins declared in his mind, Mr. Cash was just as responsible for Sherrice’s death as Jeremy Strohmeyer.

Mr. Perkins then related to the committee concerns expressed to him while A.B. 267 was being drafted. A primary concern was to not make criminals out of people who were not criminals. He told the committee that was not his intent. He remarked the early reluctance of the American courts to recognize a duty to report crimes was illustrated by Chief Justice Marshall’s statement in Marbury v. Brooks (1822): "It may be the duty of a citizen to accuse every offender and to proclaim every offense which comes to his knowledge but the law which would punish him in every case for not performing this duty is too harsh for man." Since then, he pointed out the courts had recognized certain statutes which fell within the constitutional framework. Mr. Perkins stated the Supreme Court had observed that "a gross indifference to the duty to report remained a badge of irresponsible citizenship." In United States v. Jones (1962), the court articulated four types of special relationships where a duty to intervene existed. The duty to act existed in a special relationship, such as a parent/child relationship, a statute, a contract, and a voluntarily assumed duty. He also informed the committee currently, states such as Minnesota, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin had statutory provisions with limited exceptions, which required a person who knew another person was in danger to take some type of affirmative action. Although many states, such as Nevada, limited required reporting of child abuse to professional groups, some states did not place a limit and everybody was required to report. A.B. 267 had a similar intent. It did not apply to any person in danger but only to children.

Mr. Perkins continued with a discussion of the constitutional concerns brought up by the legislation. Addressing the concern of vagueness, he explained they worked extremely hard on the definitions in the bill to avoid vagueness. Second, he acknowledged the responsibility to craft a statute that did not violate someone’s Fifth Amendment right or the prohibition of self-incrimination. Third, there was a concern with a person’s freedom of speech or in that case, the freedom not to speak. Mr. Perkins remarked many of the states with those statutes had been constitutionally challenged and prevailed.

He concluded with a quote taken from a paper written on acts of omission. "The world is viewed through many lenses. However common to all views is the knowledge that the world cannot be tackled alone. We must interact in order to survive. The relationships we form and nurture help define who we are. The problem with everyday interaction is that it must come with certain responsibilities. Most of the time these responsibilities are moral in character and we must only answer to ourselves for their breach. However much of the time, our morality is codified by the law. This is necessary for an ordered life where relationships are respected. It is puzzling how we can decouple the moral responsibility that comes with everyday relationships and not be held in violation of them simply because they are not codified by the law. The only plausible explanation of this is that nature by which we view relationships."

Chairman Anderson thanked Mr. Perkins for his thorough presentation on the background of A.B. 267. He recognized the scrupulous examination the issue commanded.

Continuing his presentation, Mr. Perkins reviewed the bill in more detail. He pointed out the purpose of each section.

• Sections 1 to 6 and sections 17 to 23 made the existing provisions of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) relating to the duty to report elder and child abuse consistent with the new provisions being added to chapter 202 by sections 8 to 15.

• Sections 9 and 10 defined child and law enforcement agency for the purposes of sections 8 to 15.

• Section 11 defined "violent or sexual offense" for the purposes of sections 8 to 15.

• Section 12 defined "reasonable cause to believe" and "as soon as reasonably practicable". The definitions of those terms were drafted using the reasonable person standard. Mr. Perkins noted statutory terms were read in the context in which they were used in conjunction with surrounding words and phrases. He emphasized the definitions of "reasonable cause to believe" and "as soon as reasonably practicable" should not be read in isolation but in the context in which they were used in section 13.

• Subsection 3 of section 12 provided for the means of oral, written or electronic communication that a person might use to comply with the duty to report.

• Section 13 created the substantive crime of failing to report a violent or sexual offense against a child to a law enforcement agency.

• Subsection 1 of section 13 provided the substantive elements of the offense. "A person who knows or has reasonable cause to believe that another person has committed a violent or sexual offense against a child must report the offense to a law enforcement agency as soon as reasonably practicable but not later than 24 hours after the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the other person has committed the violent or sexual offense against the child."

• Subsection 2 of section 13 was based upon similar provisions in the elder and child abuse reporting statutes which provided such reports must be made to an agency other than the one that employed the person who committed the offense.

• Subsection 4 of section 13 made the penalty for failing to report a misdemeanor. Mr. Perkins noted that was also the current penalty for failing to report elder and child abuse.

• Subsection 5 of section 13 provided a person could be prosecuted and convicted for failing to report whether or not the person who committed the violent or sexual offense against the child was or had been prosecuted or convicted.

• Subsection 6 of section 13 was similar to provisions in the elder abuse and child abuse reporting statutes which provided the statutory privileges set forth in chapter 49 of NRS did not excuse a person from the duty to report.

• Subsection 7 of section 13 contained several exemptions to the duty to report.

• Section 14 provided a report made pursuant to section 13 of the bill could be used by appropriate agencies in the same manner as a report of child abuse made pursuant to chapter 432B.

• Section 15 provided civil and criminal immunity under certain circumstances for a person who made a report in good faith. Section 15 also provided a person was not immune from civil or criminal liability for any other act or omission committed by the person as part of, in connection with, or as a principle or accessory to the violent or sexual offense against a child regardless of the nature of the other act or omission. Mr. Perkins commented such a person would most likely be excused from the duty to report by the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

• Section 16 provided for a civil cause of action against a person who had a duty to report a violent or sexual offense against a child pursuant to section 13 and who failed to make such a report in accordance with the provisions of that section.

Assemblyman Carpenter expressed concern with the term "practicable". He believed it allowed too much "wiggle room" and should be more specific. Mr. Perkins explained the use of the word practicable was a legal term of art. He noted that subsection 1(b) of section 13 clarified "practicable" would mean not later than 24 hours. He pointed out in the Strohmeyer case, it would have prevented the large amount of man-hours involved in the investigation as well as the grief the family went through for that time.

Referring to subsection 7 of section 13, Mr. Carpenter asked for further clarification of the exemption of a person under 18 and of a relation by blood or marriage. Mr. Perkins told Mr. Carpenter the exemption of a person under 18 was a difficult issue. He pointed out it did not extend to persons under the age of 18 that were no longer in the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Addressing the exemption of family members, he explained the child abuse statutes would prevail. He informed the committee the mother was charged in the Strohmeyer case. She was determined to have a legal obligation to Sherrice regardless of what the bill said. The exemption addressed chapter 202 not chapter 432B. He further explained aunts, uncles, sisters, and brothers could not be charged because they did not have a guardian relationship with the person who was sexually assaulted. He explained the concept was included in statutes of other states. Mr. Perkins concluded he would not be opposed to considering an amendment if that was the committee’s desire.

Referring to the term "imminent" in line 16 on page 10, Senator Wiener drew attention to the "burning bed defense". She stated there had been a long history of debate whether or not imminent was a time-related issue, or if it was something subjective. She noted an individual could perceive they were in imminent danger based on a history of violence in the household. Mr. Perkins opined imminent danger had two pieces to it. It consisted of proximity as well as the ability to cause the danger.

Senator James commended Mr. Perkins for bringing the legislation forward. He believed the bill to be a thoughtful piece of legislation that dealt with a specific class of citizens who were unable to fend for themselves. He stated his concern centered around the exemption of the family as well. He asked the Legislative Counsel Bureau to research what sort of duties would be established if that exemption was deleted. He remarked the children named in lines 42 and 43 on page 9 would already be exempted under the exemption for persons under the age of 18 which he believed to be appropriate. The other persons listed under that exemption who might be related and responsible for the child would be in the best position to know what was happening and should be required to report. Senator James pondered if the issue was covered by chapter 432B, then there should not be the additional layer of responsibility. If it was not covered then maybe the exemption should be deleted.

Mr. Perkins complimented the legal staff for their hard work and especially Kevin Powers. He reiterated it was not his intent to make criminals out of people who were not criminals and that was why the exemption was included. He stated he would not be opposed to working with the committee in regard to an amendment of the provision.

Assemblyman Brower stated section 16 on page 11 seemed to create a new tort. He questioned whether the other states with similar statutes had created a new civil cause of action and inquired about its necessity. Mr. Perkins opined the similar statutes included the civil cause of action. He explained the burden of proof in a criminal case was beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden was much less in a civil case. It would allow for the opportunity to punish a person if they had done wrong based on a lesser burden of proof in the civil area of the law.

Senator James opined the problem was the crime required knowingly or willfully, but he did not see that in section 16. He announced it failed in the duty. In tort law, actual damages were given for the breach of a duty, but punitive damages were not given unless there was malevolent intent. Senator James remarked maybe it could be built into the tort.

Mr. Perkins said he would not be opposed to trying to correct that issue.

Najee Ali, Director of Project Islamic Hope and Chairman of the Sherrice Iverson Justice Campaign, testified in favor of the bill. He expressed abhorrence at the rape and murder of Sherrice. He commented she was a young girl who lived down the street from him. He expressed equal disgust with the fact an individual witnessed her kidnapping and part of the assault and did nothing. He noted David Cash responded to a question in a L.A. Times interview, "I’m not going to lose sleep over someone else’s life. I just worry about myself first. I am not going to lose sleep over somebody else’s problems." His outrage increased when it was announced that Mr. Cash would not be charged because there was no state law against not reporting a crime. Mr. Ali opined Mr. Cash could have prevented Sherrice Iverson’s sexual assault or death by picking up a phone and notifying the proper authorities. Mr. Ali recognized that morality, ethics, and courage could not be forced upon people who were unwilling to make those values part of their lives. However, he did believe it was possible to legislate accountability for children who could not defend or protect themselves by simply calling the proper authorities. Noting there were laws that provided for punishment of someone who lied under oath, who hid evidence from the police, who failed to respond to a subpoena, or hid a fugitive, he believed, "It was time to protect the state of Nevada’s most valuable and precious possession, its children." Mr. Ali told the committee the State of California was considering similar legislation referred to as the Sherrice Iverson Child Protection Act introduced by Senator Tom Hayden. He urged the committee to support A.B. 267.

Ronald Cornell, a member of Families of Murdered Victims support group in Las Vegas, testified in support of A.B. 267. Reading from prepared testimony, he noted his son had been murdered in 1998. Family members of the person who committed the murder were reported to be present both before and after the crime and yet did not attempt to prevent the crime or assist the police with information on his whereabouts after the crime. Mr. Cornell elucidated if A.B. 267 had been law, it could have helped to prevent the crime or at least helped in the capture of the offender. Mr. Cornell’s written testimony was attached as Exhibit C.

Sandy Sharp, also a member of Families of Murdered Victims, testified in support of the bill. She noted once you became a victim of crime, you would support A.B. 267.

Charles Collenberger, Families of Murdered Victims, explained he was raised under the Good Samaritan parable and therefore would do anything he could to aid someone in trouble. He shared a couple of experiences where he had come to the aid of an individual in trouble. He believed it was his duty. He opined children were being raised to think of themselves first with no respect for others. He acknowledged respect could not be legislated, but it was possible to make it a duty for people to do something. Mr. Collenberger urged the committee support A.B. 267.

Senator James disclosed he served as a member of the Families of Murdered Victims’ board of trustees in his private capacity.

Ben Graham, a Legislative Representative of the Nevada District Attorney’s Association, explained his office anguished over whether or not there was an actionable case that could be brought against Mr. Cash. It was determined that there was not. He recognized the difficult task of crafting a constitutional provision and emphasized his support of that type of legislation. He remarked if the law was enacted, it would be supported and vigorously pursued when appropriate by the police agencies and his office. Mr. Graham stated, "We should not be afraid to take the step if it is necessary to correct a situation."

Stan Olsen, a Lieutenant with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and Legislative Representative for the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, told the committee he had faced the type of situations to which Mr. Perkins referred. He strongly agreed with Mr. Cornell’s statement and suggested A.B. 267 would be one way to prevent criminals from mocking the justice system.

Senator James questioned why exactly David Cash was not prosecuted. He wondered if Mr. Cash did not stand in the position of a lookout. Ben Graham said the issue was heavily considered. He explained mere presence did not constitute criminal liability and even though he was present and a friend, there was no significant evidence to show he was acting as a lookout other than merely an observer. Based on the evidence in his possession, Mr. Cash was not there to protect the acts of Mr. Strohmeyer.

Mr. Carpenter stated the proposed penalty would be a misdemeanor. He wondered if that was just a "slap on the wrist". Mr. Graham stated the issue could be explored and possibly made to be commensurate with the degree of the crime.

Alicia Smalley, President of the Nevada Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers, stated social workers were mandated reporters whether they were on duty or not. She believed A.B. 267 would help protect those who were vulnerable in our society such as women, children, and the elderly. The law might answer people’s question of whether or not they should report and noted the increase of cellular phones would enable people to make the call.

David Horton spoke on behalf of the Defenders of the American Constitution. He noted the common law addressed the issues mentioned in A.B. 267. Misprision of felony under the common law made it a misdemeanor to fail to do what was necessary in order to "catch the bad guy". Referring to a "hue and cry" which could be an outcry such as "stop thief", he stated it was your obligation to draw attention to the commission of a crime. He noted the legislature repealed the common law in 1967 "under the guise of codifying the criminal law". Not only was misprision of felony repealed, but things such as champerty and maintenance were also repealed. He opined those issues were currently clogging up our court systems. He suggested the commendable purposes of the bill would be expeditiously and effectively accomplished by rescinding the repeal.

Senator James disagreed with that suggestion. He stated we did not want to make things such as adultery become crimes again. An individual could still bring an action for champerty or maintenance under the civil law but not the criminal law.

Mr. Horton replied if the intent was to place common sense back into the law, "you need to benefit from the experience that was worked out before we were even a state." He stated Sherrice Iverson’s murder would not have developed if misprision of felony still existed.

Bobbie Gang, representing the Nevada Woman’s Lobby, expressed support for A.B. 267.

David Gibson, Clark County Public Defenders Office, said, "Society survives because we work together and we protect each other." Although he believed that to be true, he testified in opposition to the bill based on his belief the law would not stop crimes from being committed. Referring to the murder of Sherrice Iverson, he opined the law would not have swayed Mr. Cash to do anything differently. The charge of a misdemeanor would not have intimidated him. Mr. Gibson proceeded to point out possible problematic situations which would be created in the practice of law by the enactment of the bill. He described a scenario whereby witnesses would have to be told before they testified that they had the right to remain silent because they could be prosecuted for not coming forward. "You could actually have a situation where a state’s witness who makes the case for the state ends up being sued for everything that they have after the case is over because they did not report in a timely fashion." He also expressed concern with the deletion of certain privileges. He noted if one did away with the attorney/client privileges or the general privilege statute in NRS 49, it would create a constitutional and case law problem. He pondered if an employee chose not to report, if the corporation he worked for could be held liable. Mr. Gibson concluded, "You cannot make people be good. They will be good or they will be bad and the ones that are going to be bad are going to do bad things and it doesn’t matter what the laws say." He did not agree with morality being legislated. He pointed out one suggestion might be to review the statute regarding being an accessory.

Chairman Anderson commented, "The futility of the law has always appeared to him not to predict or to even prevent serious crime from taking place, but rather to tell and represent the feelings of the community and what the reaction of society will be to those who transgress its rules." He emphasized no one wants evil things to happen to another member of our society but that society always seemed to react after the fact.

Mr. Gibson agreed with the Chair’s remarks, however, he noted all people who witnessed bad things were not there intentionally or willfully. "Things happen that we don’t intend to happen."

Senator James stated circumstances other than the Sherrice Iverson tragedy should be taken into consideration when reviewing the bill. It focused on all crimes against children, not only murder. He reiterated a report would be required if a person knew about a crime against a child. If it was a report of abuse, the person would be apprehended and hopefully prevented from repeating the behavior or having it develop into something even more serious. He agreed with Mr. Gibson’s comments about a person hesitating to participate in a prosecution because of a threat of civil liability and suggested the committee further consider the issue. Senator James suggested allowing a prosecutory grant of immunity from criminal liability be extended to the section on civil liability. He remarked it might make the bill stronger.

Mr. Gibson replied if we were to do that, it would also need to apply to the defense.

John Morrow, Legislative Representative for Washoe County Public Defender’s Office, shared some of Mr. Gibson’s concerns. He recognized the bill’s importance in regard to the area of child protection but noted his concerns rested with two provisions in section 13. The first was with subsection 5 which stated a person could be prosecuted and convicted even if the principle was not convicted. He believed it would expose even a person who chose not to report an act that was ultimately found not to be a crime to civil liability and to criminal prosecution. He also shared Mr. Gibson’s concern about the exclusion of any privileges under chapter 49 of NRS especially to an attorney. He pointed out under NRS 432B and the elder abuse statute there were specific provisions which said if an attorney learned information from a client who was being prosecuted, they would be exempt from the reporting requirement.

Mr. Nolan noticed the reporting requirements did not seem to require a person to give their identity. Responding to him, Mr. Morrow explained he was concerned with the ethical responsibility of a lawyer. He told the committee he had participated in ethics discussions where the idea was considered, but it was decided ethical considerations would not allow it.

Mr. Nolan opined being able to report anonymously might promote compliance.

Mr. Morrow replied, "That may well be in the individual citizen area."

David Schiek, President of Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice, testified in opposition to A.B. 267 mainly due to the gambit of privileges being waived in section 13, subsection 7. He presented a scenario whereby his client was referred to a psychiatrist or a psychologist for an evaluation. Under the legislation, the psychiatrist would now be a mandated reporter and failure to report could subject him to criminal liability. He would also be subject to civil liability under section 16 which added a tort for failure to report. Mr. Schiek stated from an attorney’s point of view, he believed section 13 was absolutely unconstitutional.

Richard A. Wright, a practicing criminal defense attorney, stated he was always reluctant when he saw new criminal laws proposed. He had practiced criminal law for the past 25 years, and he noticed in the last several years, almost half of his practice consisted of defending people for criminal offenses that did not exist when he became a member of the bar. "We keep passing more and more criminal laws and it makes it very difficult for a person to remain a law-abiding citizen." Mr. Wright stated from his perspective, there was no question under existing case law, David Cash should have been prosecuted for a felony. He was an accessory after the fact. He continued the only reason he was not prosecuted was because an agreement was made with the district attorney’s office. He expressed concern with A.B. 267 in regard to criminalizing a failure to report a crime and believed additional reporting requirements would be added each session. He stated the legislation removed many options from him as a citizen. It eliminated his option to address a problem with the parents of a child, the church, or the community. He reiterated misprision of a felony was a misdemeanor for failure to inform and it did not exist anymore. In most states it existed only as misprision of treason. Mr. Wright declared aside from that, "We still have individual liberties and individual choices." He emphasized people had the right to mind their own business and keep their noses in their own yards if they so chose. He noted it might be immoral but morality should not be legislated. In regard to section 16, Mr. Wright stated a new cause of action was not needed. He was equally concerned about the removal of privileges. He elucidated every privilege in NRS chapter 49 was removed. He asserted A.B. 267 was "just feel good legislation" which would call for more people to be prosecuted. It would not change the way a person like David Cash behaved. Mr. Wright concluded if the committee felt it necessary, broaden the existing reporting requirements of NRS chapter 432B instead of "removing all of the protected communications and instead of making a blanket criminal law like this."

Mr. Brower commented the bill was not as broad as Mr. Wright would suggest. He emphasized it was about crimes against children only. "With respect to putting our noses in other people’s business, I would suggest to you that when it comes to crimes against children or even suspected crimes against children, that is the business of all of us."

Lucille Lusk, representing Nevada Concerned Citizens, stated no one could disagree with the intent of A.B. 267. She echoed previous testimony that David Cash appeared to be a person without a conscience and stated it was her belief he was an accessory to rape and to murder. She noted, however, the legislation would also extend to unconnected and innocent bystanders. Ms. Lusk pointed out another concern was a person might be prosecuted and convicted whether or not the person who committed the violent or sexual offense against a child was or had been prosecuted or convicted. "Our concern is simple. If there is not enough evidence to convict or prosecute the offender, how could we reasonably assume that there was enough evidence for an innocent bystander to have known or to report." She stated section 16 could create a very unfavorable situation for an innocent bystander who was in no way connected to the actual crime. "We ask that you assure the net that you cast catches sharks and not dolphins."

Jeff Banks, Clark County Public Defenders Office, testified in opposition to A.B. 267. He expressed discontent a person like David Cash could be a student of such a highly acclaimed school as the University of California, Berkley. On the other hand, he opposed the bill as drafted. He recognized its good intent but pondered who the law would actually impact. He believed prosecutors would be greatly affected because the legislation would force them to prove what somebody saw. He elucidated to prosecute Mr. Cash under A.B. 267, one would have to rely on Mr. Cash to come forward and state what he saw. He believed one could not rely on that. Mr. Banks also expressed concern with the provisions that dealt with exemptions and privileges.

Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Banks to fax him any suggested amendments.

Nancy Lemke, Clark County Public Defenders Office, came forward in opposition to the bill and yielded her time to testify to Howard Brooks, also from the Clark County Public Defenders Office.

Mr. Brooks stated he was a board member and officer of Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice. He told the committee of the approximately 50 murder cases he had handled in the last 5 years, 10 percent had involved both victims and killers who were under the age of 18. He emphasized the definition was extremely broad if it was to cover everyone under the age of 18. He next drew attention to the problem the bill created in regard to the investigation of witnesses. "Would I question them in the same sense because I know that the information they give me as witnesses makes them criminals?" Mr. Brooks believed the witnesses would disappear because they could possibly be charged by the state for not reporting. He concluded the bill would negatively impact his practice.

Chairman Anderson reiterated his request any proposed changes to the language of the bill be presented to him. He stated his intention to process at least part of the legislation.

Senator James suggested when and if people sent suggestions, they include an explanation of their procedure for handling cases where mandatory reporting requirements existed. He noted most of the objections brought up would pertain in those cases.

Chairman Anderson asked for all suggested amendments to be submitted by Wednesday of next week. The meeting was adjourned at 10:28 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Jennifer Carnahan,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman

DATE: