MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Sixty-seventh Session
May 13, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Robert M. Sader at 8:13 a.m., Thursday, May, 13, 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:
Ms. Cyndy Woodgate, Corporations Deputy of the Secretary of
State's Office
Mr. Michael McDonald, Washoe County Law Library
Mr. Robert Barengo, Securities Industry Association
Secretary of State Cheryl Lau
Mr. Wayne Pressel, Nevada Legal Services
OTHERS PRESENT (CON'D):
Ms. Laurel Stadler, Representative of MADD, Lyon County
Mr. Andrew Mackenzie, Representative of Conrad Hilton
Foundation/Foundation for Research/Research Dev.
Foundation
Mr. Stan Warren, Sierra Pacific Resources
Mr. John Fowler, Vargas and Bartlett
Mr. Ben Graham, Nevada District Attorney's Association
Following roll call, Chairman Sader began work session on the bills listed on the agenda.
ASSEMBLY BILL 469 -
Ratifies technical corrections made to NRS and Statutes of Nevada 1991.
ASSEMBLY BILL 196 -
Eliminates restriction on number of times charitable or educational organization may operate gambling game.
ASSEMBLY BILL 520 -
Requires court, when entering decree dividing community income, assets and obligations of husband and wife under certain circumstances to make equal division of property.
Mr. Sader said AB 469, AB 196 and AB 520 were not ready for consideration.
Mr. Haller asked what the status of AB 469 was and why the proposed amendment was not yet available for review.
Mr. Scherer explained the proposed amendment for AB 469 was not ready since it was very involved. He said there were some sections of this bill which would delete language which he felt should remain in force.
Mr. Sader said any further questions on AB 469 would be entertained and discussed when the proposed amendment was available for discussion.
ASSEMBLY BILL 349 -
Makes various changes in regulation of securities.
Mr. Robert Barengo, Securities Industry Association,
explained the proposed amendment to AB 349 (Exhibit C). Mr. Barengo explained how there was not any definition in statute for "investment advisor" but it was defined in regulation. Therefore, he said "investment advisor" should also be defined in the statute. He took the language from the National Association of Security Administrators and adopted a definition which would satisfy both his association's goals as well as the goals of the Secretary of State's office.
Cheryl Lau, Secretary of State, agreed with the proposed amendment for AB 349. Secretary Lau explained the terms "solicit" and "investment advisor." She pointed out initially Securities Industry Association (SIA) wanted to take out the word "solicit", but the amendment again included the word solicit which meant investment advisors who solicited, negotiated or sold an investment service, whether it was in-house or an outside entity, would have to register with the Secretary of State's Office.
Secretary Lau said the Security Industry did not want the word solicit in the legislation because it did not want a dual registration, but she explained by having an exemption there was not a dual registration yet there was still the public protection her office wanted.
Mr. Haller questioned Secretary Lau regarding people misleading senior citizens in investments. He asked Secretary Lau if she took complaints or if this provided for enough regulation so there would not be an "after the fact" situation.
Secretary Lau indicated this was an area of much concern, and she did have investigators who would investigate complaints on investment fraud. She said there were ways of following up on those complaints. She assured Mr. Haller with the inclusion of the word "solicit" in the bill she could follow up on any of these problems.
She explained "solicit" in the bill allowed protection for citizens, especially the senior citizens, since brokers were required to be registered. Therefore, if any problems arose an individual would be able to check with the Secretary of State's office. Secretary Lau also said her office was providing several educational programs to make people aware prior to making any murky investment of what their rights were and what they should be careful with.
Mr. Barengo noted the Security Industry Association agreed with the Secretary of State's Office. He indicated each component of these programs had a broker/dealer salesperson and an investment advisor and was regulated under state and federal statutes and the security regulations organizations. All aspects of the programs including fees were disclosed in these matters. When the word "solicit" was normally used, it was more narrowly defined in a broker/dealer situation.
Mr. Sader asked Secretary Lau if she wanted the bill passed with this proposed amendment.
ASSEMBLYMAN BONAVENTURA MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AB 349.
ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
ASSEMBLY BILL 175 -
Prohibits persons from directly or indirectly threatening or intimidating state employees.
Mr. Sader explained this bill had been heard in both Las Vegas and Carson City, and the primary supporter of the bill was the State of Nevada Employees' Association.
ASSEMBLYMAN SMITH MOVED TO DO PASS AB 175.
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Collins believed since state offices were oftentimes understaffed and the public frequently took their frustrations out on the employees, it was necessary to provide protection for state employees.
Mr. Schneider said many of the problems were caused by understaffing and lack of management in different areas and he suggested a sunset clause allowing for review in two years.
ASSEMBLYMAN SCHNEIDER MOVED TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION TO ADD A SUNSET CLAUSE ON AB 175.
ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Sader asked for any discussion on the issue of the sunset clause.
Mr. Anderson thought the sunset clause was unnecessary.
Mr. Regan suggested amending Mr. Schneider's motion by making the bill effective upon passage and approval. Mr. Schneider agreed with Mr. Regan's suggestion.
Mr. Haller noted he was torn because he was not opposed to the bill becoming effective immediately but he was opposed to a sunset clause. Therefore, he opposed the amendment.
Mr. Petrak opposed the amendment because he believed the bill was a good bill as written and should be operative until proven wrong.
Ms. Smith also opposed the amendment.
Mr. Sader requested a roll call vote.
THE MOTION TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION ON AB 175 FAILED.
ASSEMBLYMEN CARPENTER, GREGORY, REGAN, SCHERER, SCHNEIDER AND TOOMIN VOTED YES.
ASSEMBLYMEN ANDERSON, BONAVENTURA, COLLINS, HALLER, PETRAK, PORTER, SMITH AND SADER VOTED NO.
ASSEMBLYMAN GIBBONS WAS NOT PRESENT AT TIME OF THE ROLL CALL VOTE.
Ms. Smith requested inclusion of Mr. Regan's suggestion to make the bill effective upon passage and approval.
ASSEMBLYMAN SMITH MOVED TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION TO MAKE THE BILL EFFECTIVE UPON PASSAGE AND APPROVAL.
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Scherer suggested July first because when a new criminal law went on the books, it was appropriate to have some period of time for people to become acquainted with it and know their conduct was criminal.
Ms. Smith pointed out people should know better and they did not need a time period.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
ASSEMBLYMEN ANDERSON, CARPENTER, PORTER, SCHERER AND SADER OPPOSED THE MOTION.
Mr. Sader said the motion now was Do Pass as Amended and he asked for further discussion of the main motion.
THE MOTION TO DO PASS AS AMENDED ON AB 175 CARRIED.
ASSEMBLYMEN CARPENTER AND SADER OPPOSED THE MOTION.
ASSEMBLY BILL 387 -
Makes various changes concerning corporations and similar entities.
Mr. Scherer explained amendment # 427 to AB 387 (Exhibit D).
He said the amendment simply incorporated the changes suggested by Mr. Fowler of Vargas and Barlett and the Secretary of State's Office. He noted the proponents of the bill had suggested some substantial amendments to the Business Combination Act but the subcommittee felt it was important to have some continuity and not change the Business Combination Act so radically so quickly. The subcommittee agreed on a reduction in the time period from 5 years to 3 years that an interested stockholder was barred from engaging in certain transactions with the corporation. The subcommittee also agreed on a change to clarify exactly what was barred and at what point in time. He said the rest of the amendments were clean up in nature.
ASSEMBLYMAN SCHERER MOVED TO AMEND AB 387 WITH AMENDMENT #427 (EXHIBIT D) AND REREFER TO COMMITTEE.
ASSEMBLYMAN SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Haller asked Mr. Scherer why there was the need for the complete mailing address if different from the street address.
Mr. Scherer explained the purpose of requiring a mailing address if different from the street address was to give people who wanted to make inquiry or send notices to a corporation by mail a place where they could send their information, especially in rural counties where street addresses were not always sufficient.
Ms. Cyndy Woodgate, Deputy Secretary of Corporations Division of the Secretary of State's Office, had reviewed the proposed amendments to AB 387 and found them acceptable.
Mr. Fowler indicated except for one typographical error, the amendments to AB 387 were in order. Mr. Sader said the error would be corrected.
Mr. Andrew Mackenzie, representive of Conrad Hilton Foundation, Foundation for Research and Research Development, was in favor of the proposed amendment to AB 387.
Mr. Stan Warren, Sierra Pacific Resources, concurred on the proposed amendment to AB 387.
THE MOTION TO AMEND AND REREFER AB 387 CARRIED.
ASSEMBLYMAN SCHNEIDER OPPOSED THE MOTION.
ASSEMBLY BILL 462 -
Requires suppliers of mobile telephone service to provide free access to emergency telephone numbers and provides penalties for theft of mobile telephone service.
Mr. Sader explained the committee previously voted to amend AB 462 to include a penalty provision but the final decision on the proposed amendment was postponed until further review by the committee. Mr. Sader presented amendment # 396 to the committee (Exhibit E). Ms. Smith explained the proposed amendment. She said there was no opposition to the proposed amendment from the cellular industry.
ASSEMBLYMAN HALLER MOVED TO DO PASS AS AMENDED AB 462 WITH AMENDMENT # 396 (EXHIBIT E).
ASSEMBLYMAN PETRAK SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
Mr. Sader said he would handle getting the amendment corrected to include the penalty provision.
Mr. Sader directed attention to AB 50, AB 66 and AB 278 and explained he had postponed processing these bills until AB 592, requested by Nevada Association of Counties, was introduced (Exhibit F). He pointed out AB 592 would significantly increase court filing fees and would generate significant revenue. He noted AB 592 had been referred to the committee on government affairs but had not been heard yet, and it could be controversial because of the amount of money and the increase. Therefore, it would help the judiciary committee when it processed these other fee bills.
Mr. Sader asked for comments on AB 50, AB 66 and AB 278 before he entertained any motions.
A discussion followed.
Mr. McDonald, Washoe County Law Library, distributed a chart to the committee comparing the fee structure of AB 50, AB 66, AB 278 and AB 592 (Exhibit G). He explained he compiled this chart to compare the fees if all the bills passed and the optional fees were added in.
Mr. Scherer felt there was a need to establish priorities because if all the bills passed, the fee increases would be too much. He added there were already too many complaints about the cost of the legal system but based upon the priorities he set, AB 50 was the most important bill. He said the agencies should concentrate on providing basic services which were legal representation primarily in the court system and in front of administrative agencies rather than pursuing loftier legislative goals. He viewed AB 66 as in the middle of his priority list, but he could be persuaded either way while AB 278 was simply too much of an increase and should be carried either by the counties directly through AB 592, if passed, or by increased user fees for those who actually use the law library extensively.
Mr. Haller supported all the fee bills without priority. He believed, generally speaking, his constituents felt user fees were far more acceptable than taxes, although personally he felt there was a point where they should not be used.
Mr. Toomin agreed with Mr. Haller because all three bills were commendable. He said the committee should not use AB 592 as a proposition to decide on AB 50, AB 66 and AB 278.
Mr. Anderson found AB 50 to be essential to a good strong program for those people who needed legal assistance and AB 66 seemed to also be a good piece of legislation, but he had reservations about AB 278 and its implications.
Mr. Porter agreed with Mr. Scherer. He pointed out this was an age of priorities and he would only support AB 50.
Mr. Regan said, as to the three bills in question, he concurred with Mr. Scherer and ranked AB 50, AB 66, and AB 278 respectively in order of importance.
Mr. Petrak agreed with Mr. Scherer and Mr. Porter on AB 50. He said the good work done for seniors in Clark County by Nevada Legal Services was unbelievable; the help they needed financially was correct and he strongly supported it.
Ms. Smith agreed with Mr. Scherer's order of priority, but she also felt AB 66 was important because the more that was done through mediation, hopefully the less would be done through courts or the justice system.
Mr. Bonaventura said he had a bill in another committee dealing with access to legal services for people who could not afford it which was a step in the right direction. Mr. Bonaventura mirrored Mr. Scherer's comments.
Mr. Gibbons said if all the bills passed, it would preclude the average citizen from access to the courts just as Mr. Porter had said. He joined the consensus of the committee and agreed these fee increases should be looked at closely so priorities could be set to allow the average person to afford access to the courts.
Mr. Sader requested a motion first on AB 50, then motions on AB 66 and AB 278 in that order.
ASSEMBLY BILL 50 -
Increases fees charged in civil actions to support legal services for indigent and elderly persons.
Mr. Sader explained AB 50's fee increase was for funding legal services to the indigent and elderly. He added there was an amendment to this bill.
Mr. Wayne Pressel, Nevada Legal Services, who was in favor of AB 50 explained the proposed amendment to the bill. Mr. Pressel said the total increase would now be $10, $5 for the indigent and $5 for seniors for district court only.
Mr. Haller asked Mr. Pressel why the word "city" was not listed on page 1, Section 1, line 5. Mr. Pressel explained his agency's initial proposed amendment would have put the words "or city" after "a county" and before "a program" on line 5.
Mr. Petrak asked Mr. Pressel regarding Page 2, lines 18 and 19 where it said the "fees collected from the county must be used for the benefit of indigent or elderly persons in the county," how the money was specifically used on behalf of the elderly in Clark County. Mr. Pressel said in Clark County if a person was 60 years of age or over, he could apply to the Senior Law Project of the city of Las Vegas and then would be represented under their substantive law priorities regardless of income.
Mr. Carpenter asked Mr. Sader if the fees requested in AB 50 would be added to the amount asked for in AB 592 if both bills passed. Mr. Sader said if the committee passed any of these bills and Government Affairs and the Legislature passed AB 592, there would be a cumulative increase. Mr. Sader indicated it was confusing because the fees were not all in one section. He said there was a base fee the county received, which was contained in AB 592, but in other sections there were fees for different programs.
Mr. Schneider expressed his concern about Mr. Pressel's agency later affecting private industry by using the funds provided by AB 50 toward lobbying for low income housing and rent control.
Mr. Pressel pointed out some issues would not be popular with this committee or this Legislature, but it was his agency's ethical responsibility and duty to bring forward such legislation.
Mr. Bonaventura pointed out Nevada Legal Services provided good legal services for people who could not afford it, but it could not provide all indigent people legal services. Mr. Pressel agreed and said even with the fee increase it was not enough to cover everyone. Mr. Pressel explained his agency's income guidelines were 125 percent of poverty, and clearly a significant population in this state would not be eligible for services but still could not access the private market.
ASSEMBLYMAN TOOMIN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AB 50.
Mr. Sader explained the amendment to AB 50. He said on Page 1, line 5, insert the words "or municipal" after "county program" and on page 1, line 11 change $25 to $28 and on page 1, line 25 change $25 to $28. He said those were the $3 increases for the elderly. He then pointed out on page 2, line 3 change $9.50 to $12.50 and on page 2, line 5 change $14 to $17 which were also the $3 increases for the elderly in those sections.
ASSEMBLYMAN HALLER SECONDED THE MOTION.
A brief discussion followed.
Mr. Scherer suggested amending the main motion on AB 50 to exclude the additional $3 increase for the elderly because a line needed to be drawn somewhere and some priorities set. He thought the program was commendable as most of the services provided by the Senior Law Project as compared to the Nevada Legal Services were more voluntary in nature and less pressing. Because the Senior Law Project served any senior regardless of his ability to pay, he thought its clients had more of an ability to pay to support the program.
ASSEMBLYMAN SCHERER MOVED TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION ON AB 50 BY EXCLUDING THE $3 FOR THE ELDERLY.
Mr. Sader clarified the amendment to the main motion. He said the motion was to amend the main motion by deleting the $3 increase for the elderly.
ASSEMBLYMAN PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Sader asked for a roll call vote to amend the main motion on AB 50.
THE MOTION CARRIED TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION ON AB 50.
ASSEMBLYMEN ANDERSON, BONAVENTURA, CARPENTER, COLLINS, GIBBONS, GREGORY, PORTER, REGAN, SCHERER, SCHNEIDER AND SMITH VOTED YES.
ASSEMBLYMEN HALLER, TOOMIN AND SADER VOTED NO.
ASSEMBLYMAN PETRAK WAS ABSENT.
Mr. Sader said there was a motion to amend and do pass as amended AB 50.
THE MOTION CARRIED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AS AMENDED AB 50.
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS OPPOSED THE MOTION.
ASSEMBLY BILL 66 - Second Reprint
Makes various changes relating to neighborhood justice centers and certain programs for mediation of disputes.
Mr. Sader explained AB 66 would raise filing fees $5 for the Neighborhood Justice Center in Clark County and the Domestic Mediation Program in Washoe County, and it did not affect the other counties.
ASSEMBLYMAN SMITH MOVED TO DO PASS AB 66.
ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
Ms. Smith believed this was an important program and any money which could be spent to get people out of court would save a lot of money in the long run.
Mr. Collins was unable to support this measure because in so many other areas in the state there were cutbacks.
Mr. Bonaventura felt this was a good service and increased fees were necessary, but he did not agree with increasing them 100 percent. He suggested a 75 percent increase because a 100 percent increase seemed too much.
Mr. Anderson noted page 3, Section 3, subsection 3(b) said "Training provided by the center" and this was the real reason for doubling the fees. He pointed out it was actually an expansion of services, not a cost increase to maintain current services. He strongly believed there was obviously the necessity to make this a very strong and viable program thereby cutting down on crowded court calendars. Therefore, this was a cost saving program.
Mr. Porter indicated the Neighborhood Justice Program was just created in 1991 and the initial $5 assessment would double if AB 66 passed. He opposed the motion and believed the program needed more time to develop.
Mr. Sader asked for a roll call vote to do pass AB 66.
THE MOTION FAILED TO DO PASS AB 66.
ASSEMBLYMEN ANDERSON, HALLER, SMITH, TOOMIN AND SADER VOTED YES.
ASSEMBLYMEN BONAVENTURA, CARPENTER, COLLINS, GIBBONS, GREGORY, PORTER, REGAN, SCHERER AND SCHNEIDER VOTED NO.
ASSEMBLYMAN PETRAK WAS ABSENT.
Ms. Smith suggested the removal of the sunset clause which was part of the language in the original version of AB 66 to ensure the program continued in operation.
ASSEMBLYMAN SMITH MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AB 66 TO INCLUDE THE REMOVAL OF THE SUNSET CLAUSE AND INCREASE THE FEE BY $2 INSTEAD OF $5.
ASSEMBLYMAN TOOMIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
A brief discussion followed.
Mr. Sader asked for a roll call vote to amend and do pass AB 66.
THE MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS AB 66 FAILED.
ASSEMBLYMEN ANDERSON, HALLER, SCHERER, SMITH, TOOMIN AND SADER VOTED YES.
ASSEMBLYMEN BONAVENTURA, CARPENTER, COLLINS, GIBBONS, GREGORY, PORTER, REGAN AND SCHNEIDER VOTED NO.
ASSEMBLYMAN PETRAK WAS ABSENT.
Mr. Sader focused on Section 3 of the original version of AB 66 and asked Mr. Schneider if it was agreeable to delete everything with the exception of Section 3 of the original version of the bill.
ASSEMBLYMAN SCHNEIDER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AB 66 BY DELETING ALL THE LANGUAGE EXCEPT SECTION 3 OF THE ORIGINAL PRINT OF THE BILL.
ASSEMBLYMAN HALLER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
ASSEMBLYMEN BONAVENTURA, SCHERER, SMITH AND SADER OPPOSED THE MOTION.
ASSEMBLYMAN PETRAK WAS ABSENT.
ASSEMBLY BILL 278 -
Authorizes increase in filing fees in certain civil actions and administrative assessments in certain criminal actions for support of law libraries.
Mr. Michael McDonald, Washoe County Law Library, explained the proposed amendment to AB 278 which would raise the fees at the county's option in Washoe and Clark counties. The bill would allow between $15 and $30 for each complaint or answer only in district courts. He said there were adjustments in the bill because of the existing division of fees which would be deleted. Therefore, his agency proposed to do away with the current division and give the option to the county to raise the filing fees separately under these new provisions.
Mr. Anderson asked Mr. McDonald if this bill was a way to relieve the county of its responsibility to support the library program from the general fund. Mr. McDonald said there was a danger of this occurring.
ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE AB 278.
ASSEMBLYMAN PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
ASSEMBLYMEN TOOMIN, HALLER, SADER AND BONAVENTURA OPPOSED THE MOTION.
ASSEMBLYMAN PETRAK WAS ABSENT.
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 2 -
Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to provide expressly for rights of victims of crime.
Mr. Sader explained the proposed amendment (Exhibit H). The problem Mr. Sader saw was the amendment did not specify when a victim would have to be informed and what the obligation to inform the victim would be. Most of the language in the amendment came from the Arizona constitutional amendment on victims rights.
Mr. Sader said he had circulated the proposed amendment to the victims rights groups, and from the letters he had received from Mr. Collenberger, Families of Murder Victims and Ms. Sandy Heverly, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, there was no problem overall with Section 2 (a)(b)(c) and (d) of the amendment. There was a problem with the original language in Section 2(c) "negotiated plea hearings" as demonstrated by Sandy Heverly's notes to the him in Exhibit H; therefore, he deleted the
language.
Mr. Sader focused on the bottom paragraph of the proposed amendment and explained there was a difficult question of enforcement of this constitutional right. Mr. Sader explained the last paragraph of his proposed amendment (Exhibit H) where it began at the word "except" in the middle of the paragraph was an attempt to get enforcement in the bill. As a result a victim or a victim's rights group could enforce the provisions in an action for injunctive relief only, which might be sought to compel a public officer or a public employee to comply with the provisions in future cases. He explained it had to be shown the public officer or the public employee had engaged in a course of conduct or a pattern of actions or omissions which had denied victims these rights. So if there was a prosecutor who consistently ignored these rights, an individual could get a court to enjoin him from such activity which would give a victim enforcement ability without giving a victim the opportunity to overturn criminal convictions or delay a proceeding.
A brief discussion followed.
Mr. Collins asked if a judge closed a hearing, would the victim be excluded from the hearing. Mr. Porter explained the only time he had ever seen a criminal proceeding closed was in the instance of media ban or sensitive testimony from a child abuse or a sexual abuse victim.
Mr. Porter recommended 2(b) be deleted entirely because 2(a) which said "preliminary hearing, trial, sentencing, negotiated pleas, or post-trial release proceeding;" addressed the issue because at all court hearings the victim already had the right to be present.
Mr. Scherer asked Mr. Sader if there was a conflict between victims rights and the rights of the accused. Mr. Sader said the bill as drafted did not affect any of the rights of the accused. Mr. Porter added he could not see any impact from allowing a victim to be present.
Mr. Sader asked Mr. Graham, Nevada District Attorney's Association, if victims rights had the prospect or implication of infringing on the rights of the accused in a criminal proceeding. Mr. Graham said this was discussed with the bill drafters and they were very reluctant to add anything which said this shall not conflict with any other constitutional area because it was implied.
Ms. Laurel Stadler, Representative of MADD, Lyon County, spoke in favor of SJR-2. Ms. Stadler explained since victim's rights were apparently overlooked in the statutes currently available, she hoped by going to the constitutional level those statutes would be more enforceable.
Mr. Sader explained the amendment would change the bill to provide for injunctive relief against a public officer where there was a pattern of rights denied.
Mr. Regan referred to Arizona where the constitutional victims rights amendment came about by referendum. Mr. Regan suggested the committee should create a bill as opposed to a resolution because the public elected the legislature to make statutes. Mr. Sader said Mr. Regan raised the issue of whether this should be a constitutional amendment or a statute.
Mr. Carpenter agreed with Mr. Regan and said if this amendment was placed in the constitution, it would be more difficult to change than a statute.
Mr. Sader said, "I really think we ought to consider a constitutional amendment because by doing so we could provide some guidelines here if we do it. We have a statute now on victims rights and testimony was it is much stronger than other statutes even though clearly it doesn't go this far. I fear that if we don't pass a constitutional amendment and take control of this issue we will see a referendum and then we may very well have an Arizona type proposal. That referendum is going to come from the victims groups and then there will be actions for money damages and injunctive relief and so forth. I don't know whose going to volunteer to be a prosecutor if you could get personally served for failure to inform somebody. I would speak to doing an amendment simply to commandeer the field and avoid a different consequence."
Mr. Haller felt if the constitution was to be modified, there should not be a statement directing the legislature any more than it would direct any other branch of government.
Mr. Sader understood Mr. Haller's concerns but he noted there were quite a number of provisions in the constitution which said "the legislature shall provide for" which was generally enabling language to require the legislature to take action.
ASSEMBLYMAN SCHERER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS SJR 2 WITH THE AMENDMENT PRESENTED BY MR. SADER BUT EXCLUDING SUBPARAGRAPH 2(b).
ASSEMBLYMAN GREGORY SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Scherer said, as Mr. Sader had noted earlier, there was already victims' rights on the books. He thought to some extent the legislature had already done what this constitutional amendment would require.
A discussion followed.
Mr. Sader asked for a roll call vote.
THE MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS SJR 2 FAILED.
ASSEMBLYMEN GIBBONS, HALLER, REGAN, SCHERER, SMITH, TOOMIN AND SADER VOTED YES.
ASSEMBLYMEN ANDERSON, BONAVENTURA, CARPENTER, COLLINS, GREGORY, PORTER AND SCHNEIDER VOTED NO.
ASSEMBLYMAN PETRAK WAS ABSENT.
Mr. Sader asked for committee introduction of BDR41-2019,
a gaming bill which makes various changes relating to dissemination of information concerning racing.
Mr. Sader asked for committee introduction of BDR14-585 which allows use of affidavit of owner, possessor or occupant of property at preliminary hearing or proceeding of grand jury under certain circumstances.
Mr. Sader asked for committee introduction of BDR41-1880 which revises gaming statutes to accommodate cashless wagering systems.
Mr. Sader asked for committee introduction of BDR11-1864 which prohibits false accusation in divorce action of battery upon spouse or neglect of child.
ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF THE BILL DRAFT REQUESTS.
ASSEMBLYMAN SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
CHANDRA PENDERLAND
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Judiciary
May 13, 1993
Page: 1