MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Sixty-seventh Session
March 31, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Robert M. Sader at 8:05 a.m., Wednesday, March 31, 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. 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. Michael A. Schneider
Ms. Stephanie Smith
Mr. Louis A. Toomin
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Gene T. Porter, Vice Chairman Absent/Excused
Mr. SchererAbsent
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ms. Denice Miller, Research Analyst
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mr. Lee Skelley, Vice President and Casino Manager of the
Las Vegas Hilton
Mr. James Russo, Baccarat Floor Supervisor of the Las Vegas
Hilton
Mr. Mark Russell, Vice President and General Counsel of The
Mirage
Mr. Robert Faiss, Lionel Sawyer & Collins, Counsel of
Nevada Resort Association
OTHERS PRESENT (Con'd):
Mr. Tom Roche, State Gaming Control Board
Mr. William Bible, Chairman of the State Gaming Control
Board
Following the roll call, Chairman Sader opened the hearing on AB 230.
ASSEMBLY BILL 230 -
Provides that certain uncollected baccarat commissions must be included in computation of gross revenue of gaming licensee.
Mr. Bob Faiss, Lionel Sawyer & Collins, the Counsel for the Nevada Resort Association, the requesting agency, testified on AB 230. Mr. Faiss read written testimony to the committee which explained the need for the amendment and the purpose of the bill (Exhibit C). Mr. Faiss explained the amendment did two things: first, it provided a definition of "baccarat commission" and second, if a baccarat commission was not collected by a casino it was not included as part of the casino's gross revenue. Mr. Faiss introduced Mr. Lee Skelley, Vice President and Casino Manager of the Las Vegas Hilton and Mr. James Russo, Baccarat Floor Supervisor of the Las Vegas Hilton, who demonstrated the game of baccarat for the committee.
Mr. Anderson asked Mr. Russo how the commissions were initially collected and reported. Mr. Skelley explained the commissions were collected throughout the game while a player was winning.
Mr. Collins asked Mr. Russo if a player used credit while playing baccarat and he lost his full limit, how did the casino handle it. Mr. Russo stated such commissions were locked up.
Mr. Toomin asked Mr. Skelley how the casino kept a record of the commissions as a player paid them. Mr. Skelley revealed there was no record and the checks used to pay for commissions became part of the table inventory which ultimately went to the casino.
Mr. Faiss explained Exhibit D to the committee which addressed the proposed amendment to AB 230. He briefly discussed section 1 of the proposed amendment which added the definition of a baccarat commission as being "a fee a licensee may assess on cash paid out as a loss to a patron at baccarat for the purpose of modifying the odds of the game." He further pinpointed in section 2, subsection 1, (e) of the proposed amendment the wording "an uncollected baccarat commission" was not to be included in gross revenue.
Mr. Sader asked for the historical background of baccarat in Nevada. Mr. Faiss said baccarat had been around as long as the Las Vegas Hilton, more than twenty years.
Mr. Sader inquired during the more than twenty years had taxes been paid on uncollected baccarat commissions and when did this become a controversial issue. Mr. Faiss said this had been an issue for the past two years and taxes had never before been paid on uncollected baccarat commissions.
Mr. Sader asked Mr. Faiss if the Gaming Control Board had initiated collection actions prior to the last two years and was there some reason for this change. Mr. Skelley explained the decision to track uncollected baccarat commissions was relatively recent, given the history of the game. Mr. Skelley said it was a business decision to monitor what was happening in the pit.
Mr. Sader asked Mr. Faiss if the recent tracking system set up by the casino generated the attention of the Gaming Control Board. Mr. Faiss answered yes. Mr. Sader asked if there was suddenly an uncollected amount of money showing on the books. Mr. Faiss answered no, this uncollected money did not show on the books since there was no formal record of it. Mr. Faiss said there was no state requirement for documentation of uncollected baccarat commissions and all casinos handled them differently.
Mr. Tom Roche, State Gaming Control Board, testified in opposition to AB 230. Mr. Roche said the definition of gross revenue and the issue of uncollected baccarat commissions arose when the Gaming Control Board encountered some licensees who accounted for and paid assessments on their uncollected baccarat commissions. Therefore the Gaming Control Board began to explore whether or not other licensees had the same standards so it could ensure the taxing mechanism was equal among all licensees. He stated the Gaming Control Board found after scrutiny there was no equity in this area. Mr. Roche said as a result the Gaming Control Board's audit division reflected whether uncollected baccarat commissions should be recognized as revenues.
Mr. Roche met with Mr. Faiss and other representatives of the gaming industry in order to develop legislation which was agreeable both to licensees as well as the Gaming Control Board. The outgrowth of those discussions was an agreement originally reached between the board and the licensee that the board would agree to allow the licensee to make its business decisions as to whether to collect or not collect baccarat commissions as long as proper documentation was generated so the board audit division could go back in, on an after-the-fact basis, and ascertain these uncollected commissions had been properly authorized by representatives of the licensee and had been properly documented. He said the legislation which ultimately passed should provide uncollected baccarat commissions must be documented in accordance with regulations adopted by the Nevada Gaming Commission, and secondly should a licensee not comply with those documentation requirements, there should be some type of remedy available to the board to compel the licensee to subscribe to those regulations. He believed the remedy should be some type of an assessment remedy.
Mr. Roche supplied and explained Exhibit E to the committee. Mr. Roche explained page four of Exhibit E indicated where the Audit Division of the Gaming Board obtained its determination of whether baccarat commissions, collected or uncollected, constituted gross gaming revenues.
Mr. Sader asked Mr. Roche why the Gaming Control Board had not enforced this before since the Gaming Control Board had known for years some licensees were receiving markers for commissions while others were not. Mr. Roche said as administrations changed within the Gaming Control Board, policy decisions and issues which had been considered resurfaced or were identified which were not looked at by previous administrations.
Mr. Sader asked Mr. Faiss if the Las Vegas Hilton ever paid any assessments for uncollected baccarat as explained by Mr. Roche. Mr. Faiss replied no.
Mr. Sader stated, "As he understood Mr. Roche's testimony, the Gaming Control Board was not contesting the basic issue of whether the establishment should have the ability to excuse a commission. At this point you would be satisfied with what you consider documentation of proper authorization and proper documentation of what the licensee is doing. Now what do you consider proper authorization and documentation. What would you impose on these licensees which is not now being provided to you in some cases." Mr. Roche responded when he originally discussed the matter with Mr. Faiss a regulation draft was generated which articulated those requirements for some type of waiver of authorization form or a baccarat lock-up form which would need to be signed by an authority within the casino. Those forms like other forms would be secured and available for the audit division to review on an after-the-fact basis.
Mr. Sader asked Mr. Roche if there had been a breakdown in communication on this legislation. Mr. Roche was under the impression the discussions were proceeding well. He was not clear where the breakdown in communication occurred other than he was notified at the last moment that Mr. Faiss had gone back to his Association which made the decision not to go forward with the original legislation but instead proceeded with the proposed amendment Mr. Faiss had presented.
Mr. Sader asked Mr. Faiss what the problem was with Mr. Roche's suggested regulation. Mr. Faiss replied there was nothing wrong, in fact, it was the industry's suggestion to the Gaming Control Board. Mr. Faiss stated if the State Gaming Control Board and the Nevada Gaming Commission felt there should be a standard in the industry, they had the authorization and obligation to adopt a regulation establishing a standard for the industry as a whole. Mr. Faiss said his association would be pleased to assist writing the regulation.
Mr. Sader asked Mr. Roche what was wrong with the amendment as presented by Mr. Faiss and what needed to be changed in the interests of the Gaming Control Board. Mr. Roche explained the amendment as stated would essentially exempt uncollected baccarat commissions from taxation in all circumstances.
Mr. Sader asked Mr. Roche if the proposed amendment to NRS 463.0161 section 2, subsection 2, (e) needed additional language which stated, "an uncollected baccarat commission if properly documented in accordance with regulations and in addition provide some remedy" (Exhibit D). Mr. Roche said Mr. Sader's suggestion was correct and the original legislation accomplished this objective.
Mr. Sader asked Mr. Roche if the Gaming Control Board wanted the original language of AB 230 section 1, lines 6 through 8 adopted where it said, "the board determines that the uncollected baccarat commission was not documented by the licensee in accordance with regulations adopted by the commission." Mr. Roche said Mr. Sader's statement was correct and what it implied in section 1, lines 1 through 6 was the following: "For the purposes of this chapter, the computation of gross revenue must include a baccarat commission that was earned by a licensee but not collected from a patron, if, within 5 years after the day of the month following the month in which the baccarat commission was earned, the board determines....." Mr. Roche stated under this original language uncollected baccarat commissions were taxable if not properly documented.
Mr. Sader asked Mr. Faiss if he had any difficulties with Mr. Roche's recommendation. Mr. Faiss stated, "The legislature would be making a break from tradition. You're going to the concept of gross revenue as the state shares in the amount of money the licensee collects. It would be a great policy change. There are standards for documentation. The state had never enacted one for baccarat. If they want one then we'd be pleased to work with them, and as Mr. Roche said we drafted a regulation we thought did the job for them. A question of putting a tax consequence because of some question of opinion about documentation could be attached to any type of documentation the licensee is required to keep now."
Mr. Sader asked Mr. Faiss was it acceptable to add the last phrase from the original language from section 1, lines 7 through 8 of AB 230 where it said "uncollected baccarat commission was not documented by the licensee in accordance with regulations adopted by the commission." Mr. Faiss stated, "It's the legislature's prerogative to decide what the tax code of the state is going to be. If you're going to make that break with tradition then it certainly is your right to do so. I just suggested to you there is no basis for singling out baccarat to suddenly for the first time in history tax a licensee on money it does not collect."
Mr. Roche stated, "In all due respect to Mr. Faiss the audit division's analysis in this area was fairly mundane. We looked at what the Supreme Court construed as winnings. We looked at what the definition in NRS 463.0161 is of gross gaming revenues as cash received as winnings. A licensee certainly has the ability at the end of each hand to net the commission against what's paid back to the customer and collect that at the time. They are making the conscious decision not to do that as an offset to expedite the play of the game. ....And that's a pretty rudimentary analysis I think and it's not a departure from tax practice. It's a common sense application of the law."
Mr. Faiss replied, "A common sense application of the law is that the policy adopted by the legislature is that the gaming regulators are to assist the industry not only to keep it honest but to make it successful. The decision that a licensee makes at baccarat are done for one ultimate purpose, that is to make the maximum economic benefit from the game."
Mr. Sader interjected, "I agree with that and I think our policy should follow that general precept. Every licensee wants to make money, that's why they're in the game. The state should not have regulations which second guess that effort but the state must have regulations of which they can effectively monitor licensees and fulfill their purpose of gaming control. Now some place in here there's got to be common ground."
Mr. Roche stated, "To avoid this getting probably escalated up to a level that probably unwarrants it. ......I believe that we can work this thing out. Again I believe that the board having recognized the fact that the position that I've articulated to you this morning would be at some point unfair, if you will, to the licensees, that we agreed to concede the past practices to look to the future to try put in a framework that would allow everybody to clearly understand how these things should be processed in the future."
Ms. Smith asked Mr. Roche about the terms mentioned in the first reprint of AB 230 section 1, subsection 2, (a), (b) and (c) where it stated "Counterfeit money or tokens; Coins of other countries which are received in gaming devices; Cash taken in fraudulent acts .... " She asked Mr. Roche since these terms were not included how were they documented. Mr. Roche answered counterfeit money in many cases was retrieved by the licensee and turned over to the secret service or treasury for further scrutiny. Foreign currency was documented but not turned over to the Gaming Board. He said as for fraudulent acts they were documented but the burden of proof remained on the licensee to prove it was taken in a fraudulent act and therefore exempted from tax.
Ms. Smith stated the first reprint of AB 230 did not list how these items were documented or if they were required to be documented in order to be tax exempt and were there current regulations to accomplish this purpose. Mr. Roche explained there were general regulations for those items, but the issue was if something was taken in a fraudulent act the burden of proof was on the licensee to prove it was taken in a fraudulent act and therefore exempted from tax.
Ms. Smith inquired why the Gaming Control Board wanted a documentation reguirement statute in this particular area while it did not require documentation requirement statutes in other areas. Mr. Roche said he could not speak for the prior exemptions listed and that was why he believed the preferable way to approach this issue was not to list uncollected baccarat commissions as an exemption but as originally proposed to list them separately. For purposes of resolving this controversy, he wanted clear guidance to be given to the licensee as to what the board's expectations were in the area of the baccarat commissions. Mr. Roche said Ms. Smith's observation about the other exemptions and the documentation levels was a valid point and at some point when they were enumerated the documentation requirement should have been discussed or incorporated.
Ms. Smith asked if there were other areas of gaming where debt could be forgiven. Mr. Roche said there was a whole body of law which surrounded the issuance of credit to patrons by a licensee. When an individual was issued credit the individual had to fulfill both on the extension of the credit as well as when it was forgiven. He said when debt was forgiven the licensee was required to execute certain documentation and document certain collection efforts in order to legitimize it.
Ms. Smith asked if forgiven debt was taxable and was there a statute. Mr. Roche said if the forgiven debt was not properly documented and the licensee had not followed the statutorily required collection and credit extension efforts, yes it would be assessible.
Mr. Sader asked if AB 230 was originally requested by the State Gaming Board or by the industry. Mr. Roche replied it was originally proposed by the industry through Mr. Faiss.
Mr. Petrak stated, "Mr. Roche when all is said and done it seems ....... the object to this thing is to get additional ......tax ...... with these uncollected commissions. ..... I failed to see how anybody should be taxed on the income they did not receive." Mr. Petrak commented further, Mr. Roche wanted to create another paper trail for both the Gaming Commission and the casinos. Mr. Roche said if his comments were being construed as an attempt by the State Gaming Board to impose burdensome regulations or audit trails on licensees which would encumber them from accomplishing their business objectives, this was not the case at all but instead the Gaming Control Board wanted some sort of documentation requirement.
Mr. Petrak asked if Mr. Roche was familiar with how casinos in New Jersey handled this issue. Mr. Roche said he was not familiar with New Jersey but for a long time casinos did not extend credit and their mode of operation was more stringent and oppressive to licensees than in Nevada.
Mr. Schneider said he viewed the uncollected baccarat commissions as uncollected markers. Mr. Schneider asked Mr. Roche if there was a tax on uncollected markers. Mr. Roche explained there was no tax on uncollected markers if they were properly documented.
Mr. Schneider requested Mr. Mark Russell, Vice President and General Counsel of The Mirage, to give his input since he dealt with this issue everyday. Mr. Schneider asked Mr. Russell what he did in his establishment which could set the standard for the industry. Mr. Russell said his documentation had been somewhat similar to the Hilton's where he logged the date, time and amount of the baccarat commission which was waived and the customer's name. He said this logging system was used currently as an internal control measure, and its purpose was to ensure customers did not abuse the company's practice of waiving baccarat commissions, as well as make sure supervisors were following company policy. Mr. Russell said this was the only purpose for the logging system and the system was established to track information but not as a justification for the payment of gaming taxes.
Mr. Schneider asked Mr. Roche if such a system was acceptable to the Gaming Control Board if everyone instituted a similar system. Mr. Roche said what the Gaming Control Board was advocating in regulation was merely to bootstrap existing practices in the industry.
Mr. Russell responded within the regulations as they were currently drafted the industry did not believe there was any justification for Mr. Roche's position. He said while in the end the industry might agree the method the Mirage used to document its waived baccarat commissions was acceptable and would not be overly burdensome, there was still a lingering problem as to whether or not historically this type of documentation was appropriate. Mr. Russell emphasized the Mirage's position was to try and clarify what it believed the existing state of the law was that uncollected baccarat commissions were not gross revenues subject to taxation and this was very important.
Mr. Collins asked Mr. Faiss if casinos paid taxes on items they provided to customers on a complimentary basis. Mr. Faiss answered no, the industry did not pay taxes on those methods of doing business.
Mr. Gregory said he believed Mr. Roche's objective was to get uncollected baccarat commissions taxed. Mr. Gregory said through regulation there could be sanctions in the form of disciplinary action which would take care of this issue. Mr. Gregory told Mr. Roche, "You are simply trying to get your foot in the door. Trying to get that assessment in there so you can come back later and try to expand that." Mr. Roche said he was not specifically sure of the motivation of the individual audit agents but if he gave this impression it was not his impression. As Mr. Faiss would attest, he tried to view and appreciate the industry's side of the equation. Mr. Roche said if the committee's remedy for not documenting these items was a disciplinary one, he would accept this although he believed a disciplinary action was more antagonistic than an assessment sanction.
Mr. Sader asked Mr. Roche if the committee decided on a license regulation, did he still think the language and the amendment needed to be changed. Mr. Roche answered as long as there was a clear record the regulations were to be installed and documentation requirements were adopted in regulations he saw no reason to amend it.
Mr. Anderson asked if the gaming regulations were currently in place or did the Gaming Control Board get involved with issues mentioned in section 1, subsection 2, (a) and (d) which said "Counterfeit Money or token or cash received as entry for contests or tournaments in which patrons compete for prizes." Mr. Roche explained with respect to counterfeit money or tokens and coins from other countries, periodically the licensees reported to the board counterfeit funds which were received. Since there was not any stringent documentation requirements, it was a licensee's burden to show he had properly accounted for these items and therefore they were tax exempt.
Ms. Smith addressed the following comment to Mr. Roche: "As I'm listening to all this, it seems like we both want to be in the same spot in the road and we're arguing which path we should take to get there. The Gaming philosophy is this should be an inherent exemption covered under the same list of other things, and your argument is it comes under forgiven debt and we should approach it from that avenue. So basically our choice is between two philosophies, but the result is going to be the same. If we choose option A which is your option to put it under the same debt category as forgiven debt, you'll have to control it. If we choose option B which is the gaming approach to make an automatic exemption, do you feel you will have the same control, will you be able to have regulations." Mr. Roche replied the Gaming Control Board would have regulations but not at the same level of control it would have under the first alternative. Ms. Smith asked Mr. Roche why not. Mr. Roche said the sanctions which would result under the second option would put the burden on the Gaming Control Board to pursue disciplinary action while the first option would be more of a taxation sanction.
There being no further testimony, Mr. Sader closed the hearing on AB 230.
ASSEMBLYMAN GREGORY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AB 230.
ASSEMBLYMAN BONAVENTURA SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Sader asked for committee agreement for the proposed amendment from Mr. Faiss as well as support for any regulations the Gaming Control Board would promulgate regarding proper authorization and documentation of baccarat commissions as long as these regulations were consistent with the intentions of the committee in the promotion of this bill. There was no opposition to Chairman Sader's comment.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
ASSEMBLY BILL 233 -
Clarifies circumstances under which certain credit instruments qualify for exclusion from requirement that face value of credit instrument be included in computation of gross revenue of licensee.
Mr. Bob Faiss, Counsel for the Nevada Gaming Association, provided the committee with a proposed amendment to AB 233 (Exhibit F).
Mr. Sader recommended AB 233 should be gutted and another issue which related to gaming should be put into the bill. Mr. Sader said because the amendment to AB 233 had not been publicly noticed he did not want to take testimony or questions on it. He preferred to first amend the bill, have it reprinted and then give public notice at which time the bill would be considered.
Mr. Sader asked if anyone was in attendance to testify on the original print of AB 233. There was no one present to testify on the original print of AB 233.
There being no further testimony, Mr. Sader closed the hearing on AB 233.
ASSEMBLYMAN SMITH MOVED TO AMEND AND REREFER AB 233 TO COMMITTEE.
ASSEMBLYMAN TOOMIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
ASSEMBLY BILL 293 -
Establishes absolute privilege for certain information relating to gaming.
Mr. Bob Faiss, the Counsel for the Nevada Resort Association, testified in support of AB 293. Mr. Faiss introduced Mr. David Belding, Chairman of the Nevada Resort Association and Mr. Richard Bunker, President of the Nevada Resort Association who were also in support of AB 293. Mr. Faiss said the proposed amendment to NRS 463.3407 extended the protection of gaming licensees and applicants for communications made and documents transmitted to the State Gaming Control Board and the Nevada Gaming Commission. He said although the present provisions of the law were selectively rearranged, the only new language in the bill was found on page 1 lines 10 and 11. He said at present the law provided such communications and documents were absolutely privileged and did not impose liability for defamation or constitute a ground for recovery in a lawsuit provided the communications were required by law or a subpoena. He stated it had been recognized this protection was inadequate because it did not cover information important to the gaming control function which was voluntarily submitted to the Board or Commission. Mr. Faiss said an example of this was an internal investigation conducted by a licensee the results of which were transmitted to the gaming authorities. Mr. Faiss said this amendment would extend the protection of the statute to communications or documents voluntarily provided by a licensee or applicant to assist the Board or Commission in the performance of its duties.
Mr. William Bible, Chairman of the State Gaming Control Board, testified in support of AB 293. He believed it provided additional protection to the industry on material it provided to the Board. Mr. Bible said the material did assist the Gaming Control Board in conducting its function.
There being no further testimony, Chairman Sader closed the hearing on AB 293.
ASSEMBLYMAN SCHNEIDER MOVED TO DO PASS AB 293.
ASSEMBLYMAN PETRAK SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
ASSEMBLY 297 -
Makes various changes relating to gaming.
Mr. Bob Faiss, Counsel for the Nevada Resort Association, testified in support of AB 297. Mr. Faiss again introduced Mr. David Belding, Chairman of the Nevada Resort Association and Mr. Richard Bunker, President of Nevada Resort Association, who were also in support of AB 297. Mr. Faiss said AB 297 dealt with the subject of declaratory judgments. He focused the committee's attention on page 2, section 3, line 41 of AB 297 where it proposed an amendment to NRS 463.343. Mr. Faiss said NRS 463.343 currently established the procedures for court declarations concerning interpretations of gaming statute regulations. He said at present only an individual licensee could bring such a court action even if the question concerned the industry as a whole. Mr. Faiss's association asked for the expansion of the statute so licensee organizations would be allowed to seek declaratory judgments which would allow the burden of a court resolution of a general gaming law question to be shared by segments of the industry or the industry as a whole. He said the bill added associations of licensees as acceptable court petitioners. Mr. Faiss supplied and explained to the committee a proposed amendment to AB 297 (Exhibit G). He wanted this proposed amendment to be added to the bill so major gaming industry associations such as the Nevada Resort Association and the Nevada Pari-mutuel Association were included under this statute. He said the proposed amendment would provide greater flexibility to the Gaming Control Act. He said at present the law did not prohibit public companies from holding gaming licenses, but there were a variety of restrictions on corporate gaming licensees with which a public company could not comply. Mr. Faiss gave the example the requirement for a licensee corporation which said no stock could be transferred without the prior approval of the Commission. He stated obviously a public company could not begin to comply with this regulation. The amendment removed those burdens without infringing on gaming control, and at present a public corporation could be associated with the Nevada Gaming Industry only through ownership of a subsidiary corporation. This change would allow a public corporation the flexibility of deciding what, in a business sense, was best for it.
Mr. William Bible, Chairman of the State Gaming Control Board, spoke in favor of AB 297. Mr. Bible concurred with Mr. Faiss's comments. He said the allowance of a state gaming license to a public corporation would provide an additional amount of flexibility which the State Gaming Control Board did not currently have. He had no opposition to the bill.
There being no further testimony, Mr. Sader closed the hearing on AB 297.
ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AB 297.
ASSEMBLYMAN GIBBONS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
ASSEMBLY BILL 52 -
Imposes civil liability against person who is convicted of larceny or certain other crimes, or who damages property on merchant's premises.
Chairman Sader presented the committee with proposed Senate amendment #138 to AB 52 (Exhibit H). The committee concurred with the proposed Senate amendment to AB 52.
ASSEMBLY BILL 65 -
Allows testimony given before magistrate at hearing or examination to be admitted at trial if witness persistently refuses to testify despite order of judge to do so.
Mr. Sader presented the committee with Senate amendment #106 to AB 65 (Exhibit I). The Assembly judiciary committee concurred with the proposed Senate amendment to AB 65.
Mr. Sader asked for committee introduction of BDR 11-1448 which provides for disposition upon divorce of property held by parties in joint tenancy (Exhibit J).
ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR11-1448.
ASSEMBLYMAN PETRAK SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
Chairman Sader asked for committee introduction of BDR 14-1735 which revises provisions governing judgments of acquittal. (Exhibit K).
ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 14-1735.
ASSEMBLYMAN BONAVENTURA SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
CHANDRA PENDERLAND
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Judiciary
March 31, 1993
Page: 1