MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Sixty-Seventh Session
March 2, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Robert M. Sader at 8:08 a.m., Tuesday, March 2, 1993, in Room 332 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda, Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Robert M. Sader, Chairman
Mr. Gene T. Porter, Vice Chairman
Mr. Bernie Anderson
Mr John C. Bonaventura
Mr. John C. Carpenter
Mr. Tom Collins, Jr.
Mr. James A. Gibbons
Mr. William D. Gregory
Mr. Ken L. Haller
Mr. William A. Petrak
Mr. John B. Regan
Mr. Scott Scherer
Mr. Michael A. Schneider
Ms. Stephanie Smith
Mr. Louis A. Toomin
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ms. Denice Miller, Research Analyst
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mr. Larry G. Bettis, City of Las Vegas
Mr. Kevin Higgins, Deputy Attorney General's Office
Sheriff Paul McGrath, Carson City Sheriff's Department
Mr. Ben Graham, Nevada District Attorney's Association
Ms. Mary Henderson, Washoe County Department of Finance
Lieutenant Jim Nadeau, Washoe County Sheriff's Office
Following roll call, Mr. Sader welcomed Mr. Haller back to the committee after his long illness. Mr. Sader announced Mr. Schneider was a permanent member of the committee.
Mr. Sader opened the hearing on AB 226.
ASSEMBLY BILL 226 -
Establishes monetary threshold for imposing penalties for forgery.
Ms. Mary Henderson, Washoe County Department of Finance, the requesting agency testified on AB 226. Ms. Henderson explained AB 226 was presented through the Board of County Commissioners by the Public Defenders' Office but unfortunately no one from that office showed up to testify. Ms. Henderson apologized to the committee and requested AB 226 be postponed since there were complications with this bill. Mr. Kevin Higgins, Deputy Attorney General's Office, provided for the record a common example of forgery (Exhibit C). Mr. Sader granted Ms. Henderson's request and continued the hearing on AB 226.
ASSEMBLY BILL 227 -
Authorizes return of person to another state without extradition proceeding if person executed waiver of extradition in state requesting his return.
Mr. Ben Graham, Nevada District Attorney's Association, the requesting agency testified on AB 227.
Mr. Graham explained he was in the Extraditions Division of the Clark County District Attorney's Office. The Extraditions Division dealt with bringing people back who were wanted in Nevada as well as people who fled to Nevada. When individuals signed the terms of parole and probation, they had to remain in their assigned jurisdictions, but when such individuals fled, the extradition process was waived. Mr. Graham defined the process of extradition as when a Governor of another state requested from the Governor of Nevada or the Nevada Attorney General's Office a person be returned to the state from which he or she had fled.
Mr. Graham reviewed Nevada case law and calls received from the Clark County jail and Police Department concerning fugitives who said they did not want to go back to the state which they had fled and the other state sent a valid, preassigned waiver with a positive identification. The officers who handled such cases did not know what to do with these out-of-state fugitives. Mr. Graham said his office came up with various things to do with these fugitives, none of which was authorized by statute.
Mr. Graham discovered after research that six states (California, Arizona, Hawaii, Maine, Montana and Louisiana) had legislation similar to AB 227. The Nevada District Attorney's Office wanted AB 227 to establish statutory authority in Nevada to conform to the statutes and case law of other states in matters of extradition.
Mr. Graham introduced Mr. Kevin Higgins, Deputy Attorney General's Office, who also spoke in support of AB 227. Mr. Higgins dealt not only with Clark County extradition problems but also with all 17 counties. He agreed with the testimony given by Mr. Graham. Mr. Higgins said Las Vegas in particular seemed to be a location where people who fled custody of other legal authorities went to hide. Mr. Higgins also stated a good percentage of people who were caught were extradited from Nevada which required hearings both in Nevada and in the requesting state. Mr. Higgins stressed many of these possible fugitives should be extradited without the necessity of going through the extradition process. Oftentimes, suspected fugitives were held in Nevada's local jails for 30, 60, sometimes in excess of 120 days while law authorities waited for the paperwork and the appropriate hearings.
Mr. Collins inquired if procedures existed to ensure accurate identification of a person suspected of being a fugitive from another state. Mr. Graham answered yes there were safeguards in place to ensure accurate identification.
Mr. Sader stated the purpose of AB 227 was to promote efficiency in government, to save money and to get criminals out of Nevada who had committed crimes in other states. This bill would free up jail time and space for the real criminals of this state.
There being no further testimony, Mr. Sader closed the hearing on AB 227.
ASSEMBLYMAN PETRAK MOVED TO DO PASS AB 227.
ASSEMBLYMAN TOOMIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ASSEMBLY BILL 76 -
Creates administrative assessment to be used to help defray costs of extradition.
Mr. Sader brought to the committee's attention an opinion letter from the Attorney General's Office (Exhibit D) and an opinion letter from Legislative Counsel Bureau (Exhibit E) which dealt with AB 76 and was to be discussed in the work session Friday, March 5. Mr. Sader said there was a difference of opinion between Legislative Counsel Bureau and the Attorney General's Office regarding the constitutionality of AB 76. Mr. Sader requested Mr. Higgins advise the committee whether to proceed with AB 76 before Friday's work session.
Mr. Sader opened the hearing on AB 228.
ASSEMBLY BILL 228 -
Allows all prosecuting attorneys to issue subpenas for witnesses.
Mr. Larry Bettis, City of Las Vegas, the requesting agency testified on AB 228. Mr. Bettis said AB 228 would expand the authority for the issuance of subpoenas to all prosecuting offices within the state. Mr. Bettis explained currently only the District Attorney's Office could issue subpoenas through its office. The bill was proposed to expand this authority to the City Attorney and the Attorney General's offices. Mr. Bettis pointed out the City of Las Vegas currently required the issuance of approximately 1,000 subpoenas per month for the prosecution of misdemeanor offenses committed within the city's jurisdiction. Mr. Bettis clarified since the prosecuting attorney's office was the main agency which dealt directly with witnesses on a daily basis and was involved in scheduling witnesses to appear in court, AB 228 would make the subpoena process more efficient. This bill would eliminate many of delays caused by a congested court calendar; therefore, Mr. Bettis urged its passage.
Mr. Porter asked Mr. Bettis to clarify the problems the City Attorney's Office had experienced with the issuance of subpoenas.
Mr. Bettis explained it would be easier for a City Attorney to have the ability to issue a subpoena from his office just as in the case of a District Attorney. Presently the City Attorney's Office had to go through another administrative step of going to the County Clerk's Office, then to the Municipal Court and have the subpoena issued there.
There being no further testimony, Mr. Sader closed the hearing on AB 228.
ASSEMBLYMAN SMITH MOVED TO DO PASS AB 228.
ASSEMBLYMAN GIBBONS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ASSEMBLY BILL 232 -
Makes theft of firearm felony regardless of value.
Sheriff Paul McGrath, Carson City Sheriff's Department, stepped forward to promote AB 232. This bill was requested by the Nevada Sheriffs' and Chiefs Association. Sheriff McGrath explained AB 232 enhanced the penalty for stealing any firearm to grand larceny. Sheriff McGrath stated if someone stole weapons as part of a burglary the charge should be grand larceny. Mr. Sader inquired how the theft of a firearm was unique from any other stolen property. Mr. Sader gave the scenario when a person stole a coat which was less than $250 he would not be prosecuted for a felony while a person who stole a handgun worth less than $250 would be guilty of a felony. Sheriff McGrath answered a handgun usually was used for violent purposes, especially when related to gang activities.
Mr. Gibbons inquired of Sheriff McGrath how many firearms were stolen annually in Nevada and what was the impact on the prison system. Sheriff McGrath said approximately 50 to 75 guns were stolen every year in his jurisdiction. He stated if individuals were charged for this type of crime, there definitely would be an effect on the prison system.
Mr. Anderson asked Sheriff McGrath how many thefts of a single firearm with a value of less than $250 would potentially fall under this new legislation. Sheriff McGrath said he did not know the answer statewide but he would research it. Mr. Anderson requested Sheriff McGrath to give an estimate of the number of firearm thefts which fell into this category and Sheriff McGrath replied between 400 to 500.
Mr. Scherer inquired if an individual had stolen a purse or handbag only to discover a handgun was concealed inside, would the individual be charged with a felony. In answer to Mr. Scherer's question, Sheriff McGrath said yes the person could be charged with a felony under this bill.
Mr. Frank Barker, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, came forward to answer Mr. Petrak's question regarding the number of guns stolen in Washoe County. Mr. Barker said he did not know the total number of firearms stolen, but if AB 232 was enacted 25 cases would have been added to the 1992 felony cases investigated. Mr. Barker was also in support of AB 232.
Mr. Toomin asked Mr. Barker if he kept any records of the crimes committed where guns were recovered, if so what percentage of those were stolen weapons. Mr. Barker responded he did not have such figures presently with him but he could obtain the information.
Mr. Carpenter told Sheriff McGarth it would be difficult to prosecute an individual as a felon for stealing a handgun under $250 because of plea bargaining.
Ms. Smith asked Mr. Barker about the gun robbery which occurred in his jurisdiction where 70 weapons were stolen. She inquired if the 70 guns were distributed to 70 people, how would this bill affect their prosecution. Mr. Barker answered if the amendment Sheriff McGarth recommended was adopted and the possession of a stolen firearm was made a felony, a felony charge would be made against everyone caught with one of those 70 weapons.
Lieutenant Jim Nadeau, Washoe County Sheriff's Office, approached the witness stand in favor of AB 232. Lieutenant Nadeau stressed not to confuse the issue. It was not house burglary or vehicle burglary addressed here but an event where a gun was taken from an open bed of a pickup or a snowmobile, and only in these specific instances would AB 232's impact be significant.
Mr. Ben Graham, District Attorney's Office, came forward to testify on AB 232. Mr. Graham recommended an amendment to AB 232 suggested to him by gun retailers in Washoe County. The amendment would make it a felony if someone purchased a gun with a bad check no matter what the value of the gun. Mr. Graham added if the committee had an interest he would assist with the language.
Mr. Haller informed Mr. Graham there would be a bill introduced in the next few days which resolved the concerns Mr. Graham addressed with his amendment.
There being no further testimony, Mr. Sader closed the hearing on AB 232.
ASSEMBLYMAN PORTER MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE AB 232.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
The committee discussed the motion. Ms. Smith believed the bill deserved consideration based upon Lieutenant Nadeau's argument no matter if a weapon cost 50 cents or if it cost thousands of dollars it could still kill someone. Mr. Schneider and Mr. Anderson supported the motion. Mr. Regan supported Sheriff McGrath's amendment, which increased the penalty for possession of a stolen gun and disagreed with the motion.
Chairman Sader asked for a roll call vote.
THE MOTION TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE AB 232 CARRIED.
ASSEMBLYMEN ANDERSON, BONAVENTURA, CARPENTER, COLLINS, GIBBONS, GREGORY, HALLER, PETRAK, PORTER, SCHERER, SCHNEIDER, SMITH AND SADER VOTED YES.
ASSEMBLYMEN REGAN AND TOOMIN VOTED NO.
ASSEMBLY BILL 73 -
Provides for reporting and punishment of abuse of patients.
Mr. Sader announced a continuance of AB 73 from the agenda for Friday March 5, since there was a new expanded amendment which needed to be circulated by the subcommittee first.
ASSEMBLY BILL 89 -
Revises criminal provisions relating to owning or keeping a vicious dog.
Ms. Denice Miller, research analyst, prepared a comprehensive memorandum on vicious dog laws in other states (Exhibit F). Mr. Sader asked Ms. Miller to make copies and distribute her findings to the committee. Mr. Sader wanted to discuss AB 89 on Friday, March 5, in light of this new information but not to vote on it until after an amendment had been drafted.
Mr. Sader requested for committee drafting of a bill from the Trial Lawyers' Association for an amendment to NRS458.300 which would expand the circumstances where a convicted person was eligible to elect civil confinement.
ASSEMBLYMAN PORTER MOVED FOR COMMITTEE DRAFTING OF THE BILL DRAFT REQUEST.
ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Sader asked for committee introduction of BDR7-1798 which provided for changes relating to filing affidavits of experts in claims for medical malpractice of the screening panel.
ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR7-1798.
ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Sader next asked for committee introduction of BDR41-1405 which originated from the Nevada Resorts Association, to grant state gaming licenses to publicly traded corporations and associations.
ASSEMBLYMAN PORTER MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR41-1405.
ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Sader requested committee approval of the committee meeting minutes dated January 18, 19, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29.
ASSEMBLYMAN PORTER MOVED FOR COMMITTEE APPROVAL OF JANUARY'S COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES.
ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 9:04 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
CHANDRA PENDERLAND
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Judiciary
March 2, 1993
Page: 1