MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Sixty-seventh Session
March 31, 1993
The Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 1:30 p.m., on Wednesday, March 31, 1993, in Room 224 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Mark A. James, Chairman
Senator R. Hal Smith, Vice Chairman
Senator Mike McGinness
Senator Dina Titus *
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer *
Senator Ernest E. Adler
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen (Excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Lori Lipman Brown
Senator Thomas J. Hickey
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Dennis Neilander, Senior Research Analyst
Sherry Nesbitt, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Robey Willis, Justice of the Peace and Municipal Court
Judge, Carson City, Nevada, President and Legislative Chairman
of the Nevada Judges Association
William A. Maddox, Attorney at Law
Tammy L. Torey, Deputy Attorney General, State of Nevada, Division of Child and Family Welfare
Nanda Scott, Adoption Specialist, State of Nevada, Division of
Child and Family Welfare
Lieutenant James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Washoe County Sheriff's
Office
Captain Randy L. Oaks, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police
Department
David Jones, Member of the Public
Ann McCarthy, Member, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association
Brad Bodeau, Member of the Public
Victoria D. Riley, Lobbyist, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association
Marie Soldo, Lobbyist, Sierra Health Services
Paula Treat, Lobbyist, Nevada Judges Association
Kay Zunino, Chief, State of Nevada, Child Support Enforcement,
Progarm, Welfare Division, Department of Human Resources
* Committee members only present for a portion of the meeting. This is noted in the body of the minutes.
Senator James opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 225.
SENATE BILL 225: Authorizes issuance of subpoena by attorney in criminal investigation of racketeering. (BDR 14-434)
Senator James stated that the person requesting S.B. 225 had advised the requested subpoena procedure is already covered adequately by statute. Therefore, the requestor has indicated no desire to pursue the bill.
SENATOR SMITH MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 225.
SENATOR MCGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS JACOBSEN, TITUS AND SHAFFER WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Senator James opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 271.
SENATE BILL 271: Revises qualifications for justices of peace in certain townships. (BDR 1-1101)
Senator Lori Lipman Brown provided oral testimony in support of S.B. 271. She enumerated her reasons for signing on the bill. She compared making legal decisions with no legal background to someone with no electrical experience installing electrical wiring. She believed a grand-parenting clause in the bill regarding people already on the bench was appropriate, as those people have obtained much information in their experience. She described a personal experience involving a member of the judiciary who had no legal background.
Senator Adler asked if S.B. 271 essentially applied to Clark County.
Senator James advised the statute currently read:
A justice of the peace in a township whose population is 250,000 or more must be an attorney who is licensed and admitted to practice law in the courts of this state. A justice of the peace in a township whose population is less than 250,000 must have a high school diploma.
He stated S.B. 271 would change the statute to read:
. . .in a county whose population whose population is 400,000 or more, a justice of the peace in a township whose population is 50,000 or more must be an attorney.
He advised the bill refers to townships with a population of less than 50,000 in such a county. In a county with a population less than 400,000, the judicial candidate must have a high school diploma.
Senator Adler asked for and received confirmation that S.B. 271 applied to both Washoe and Clark counties.
Senator James confirmed that in Clark County, the bill would affect Henderson and North Las Vegas.
Senator Adler confirmed this was based on the census data.
Senator James referred to letters from Judge Rodney Burr (attached as Exhibit C) and from Judge James B. Kelly (attached as Exhibit D), both in support of S.B. 271.
Senator James asked the reason for making a distinction between judges in small counties and those in larger cities.
Senator Brown stated she believes it is a matter of availability of people, as some rural communities might not have sufficient numbers of people with legal backgrounds.
Senator Smith stated he has difficulty with the way S.B. 271 is written. His district has one legally trained justice of the peace and six rural justices of the peace, who have no legal training. He was concerned with representing the interests of all. He was not certain this was the most appropriate method to pursue the subject, and wondered if there might be a mutually acceptable alternative.
Senator Shaffer entered the committee meeting at 1:50 p.m.
Senator Thomas J. Hickey, provided oral testimony in support of S.B. 271. He stated the bill was requested by Judge Kelly in North Las Vegas. Senator Hickey understands S.B. 271 is restricted to townships. He referred to Judge Kelly's letter and agreed with its content. He believed the impetus bringing the legislation was a problem in complexity of an area which has grown in population size, requiring more complicated dealings in the judicial system. He supports lay judges, because they bring common sense to the court when dealing with day-to-day activities. However, he believes in metropolitan areas containing pockets, the provisions of S.B. 271 are needed.
Senator James explained the jurisdiction of justice courts. He again asked why the distinction was being made between judges in a rural area and a large city.
Senator Hickey believed there are other practical matters. He stated, in the rural counties often district attorneys come from outside the county to serve as legal advisors. He believed it was a practical problem of not being able to attract people with legal backgrounds.
Senator Titus entered the committee meeting at 1:55 p.m.
Paula Treat, Lobbyist, Nevada Judges Association (NJA) gave oral testimony in opposition to S.B. 271. She stated the NJA represents every lower court judge in Nevada, all of whom are opposed to S.B. 271, with the exception of Judges Burr and Kelly. She compared the qualifications of the bill to requiring members of the committees on judiciary in the legislature being required to hold law degrees. The NJA believes the people of Nevada have been extremely astute in deciding who represents them in the legislature as well as in the justice and municipal courts.
Robey Willis, Justice of the Peace and Municipal Court Judge, Carson City, President and Legislative Chairman of the Nevada Judges Association, provided oral testimony. He advised his association feels the requirements in S.B. 271 are non-essential, and restrictive to the voters. He explained the process by which the association decides which bills to support in the legislature, and advised S.B. 271 was not approved nor desired by the association. He advised all lower court judges attend the National Judicial College in Reno to learn to be competent judges. He further advised that in 1991 or 1992, Nevada was the number one state in the union for judges receiving judicial education. He stated that even if the bill only affected two jurisdictions in Clark County, the association would be opposed. However, he believed it would also affect Sparks and Carson City. He stated approximately 46 justices of the peace in Nevada are non-attorneys and 15 are attorneys. He explained that many people who do not possess law degrees, such as members of the Senate Committee on Judiciary, are capable of deciding legal issues in the lower courts. He advised Dean Peyant, Dean of the National Judicial College, was asked about the question raised in S.B. 271 during the 1991 legislative session. Dean Peyant replied the requirement should not be put into effect, as there is still a place for the lay judge in our society. Judge Willis advised that Marvin Texiera, Mayor of Carson City, also opposes the bill.
William A. Maddox, Attorney at Law, offered oral testimony in opposition to S.B. 271. He expressed satisfaction with all of the lay justices in Nevada before whom he has appeared. He disagreed with Senator Brown's comparison of a non-electrician working on a house. He believed justice should be dispensed in the courts, not by "legaleeze." He has practiced in 17 counties in Nevada and appeared before 20 or 30 justices of the peace. He has appeared approximately 5,000 times in justice courts, nearly every time before lay justices, but also before justices possessing law degrees. He has also appeared in district courts where all judges are attorneys. He believed for what has to be done in justice court the justices do as good a job, if not better, than lawyers would in the same circumstances. He stated he believes the law makes sense and a lay person can interpret it as well as an attorney.
Senator McGinness asked for a description of the training required through the judicial college.
Judge Willis answered that by statute, a course must be taken the first year an individual is a lower court judge. He stated this course covers the rules of evidence and basics. The justices are also encouraged by the courts to attend continuing courses offered at the judicial college. He added there is now a course offered which is the equivalent of the first year of law school. The state of Nevada funds three people per year to attend this course.
Senator James stated that a case lost at the justice court level may be appealed to the district court where the judges are attorneys.
Senator James asked why the bill made the distinction between large cities and small areas.
Judge Willis advised that the legislature set the population of 250,000 a number of years before. He thought perhaps in cities such as Las Vegas there may exist more complex or serious cases, requiring the expertise of an attorney.
Mr. Maddox suggested that non-lawyer justices tend to be more attentive in the sense they do not make decisions as quickly as a justice who is an attorney. He also believed they move cases more quickly, as they apply common sense and do not over-intellectualize the process.
Judge Willis advised he represented both attorneys and non-attorneys in the NJA, and was not prejudiced. He simply believed the public's right to chose should not be restricted. He believed another reason for the population distinction in the bill was accessibility. He stated in the smaller areas, candidates for court justices could get to the people more easily, whereas in a large place, possibly the Nevada State Bar would be the best reference.
Senator James confirmed there was no further testimony, and closed the hearing on S.B. 271.
Senator James opened the work session to review bills previously heard in the Senate Committee on Judiciary. The first bill discussed was Senate Bill (S.B.) 78.
Senate Bill 78: Prohibits persons and organizations not licensed to place children for adoption from advertising certain services relating to adoption of children. (BDR 11-405)
Senator James advised the subcommittee had drafted proposed amendments to S.B. 78, and asked Senator Adler to explain their content.
Senator Adler advised the amendments addressed discussions in the previous hearing on S.B. 78. The proposed amendments are attached hereto as Exhibit E. Senator Adler stated the legislature cannot set rules for the state bar. However, it can make them aware that attorneys are placing ads relating to adoption of children, and essentially engaging in unauthorized activities. Senator Adler felt there should be a penalty for engaging in those activities. He explained the idea behind the amendment was not to hurt such groups as the crisis pregnancy center or planned parenthood, but targeted attorneys who are violating the statutes. He further advised that attorneys can only receive a reasonable fee for legal services in an adoption.
Senator James asked if the subcommittee was suggesting all language in the bill beginning with line 9, be eliminated.
Senator Adler replied all previous amendments were being removed, and a new section 3 was being added, dealing with the news media in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 127.310. Additionally, a new provision was being added to NRS 127.285. He believed the existing language in S.B. 78 would hurt agencies truly trying to help mothers and children.
Senator James advised another hearing would be scheduled for S.B. 78 after the bill has been rewritten as amended. Senator James felt there might be a problem with unconstitutionality, not only regarding the First Amendment, but also with regulation of interstate commerce.
Senator James closed the hearing on S.B. 78.
The hearing was opened on Senate Bill (S.B.) 164.
SENATE BILL 164: Provides additional remedy to enforce order of court requiring parent to obtain health insurance for his child. (BDR 3-748)
Senator James advised the committee had received the amendments which Kay Zunino, Chief, State of Nevada, Division of Child Support Enforcement, Welfare Division, Department of Human Resources, had prepared. Those amendments are attached as Exhibit F. Senator James advised the committee had, at the original hearing, agreed to postpone voting on S.B. 164 for 30 days. This was done to allow time for Ms. Zunino to receive any further responses to her letter sent to employers regarding the bill, and for drafting of amendments. Senator James also advised he had received requests for possible additional amendments, but none had been submitted. He asked if anyone was interested in making additional proposals for changes in S.B. 164. He explained the current amendments set out information necessary to enroll a child in the health insurance plan. This would address the concerns of employers who do not want to be put in a position where they cannot honor the request due to two parents in a non-conciliatory relationship, who will not release the necessary information.
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 164.
SENATOR ADLER SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator McGinness asked for clarification of the testimony of Mr. Guisti from the previous hearing. Referring to a situation where a court has already ordered health insurance, Senator McGinness asked if the bill was redundant or if the intent was to provide stronger language. He asked what additional requirement the bill imposed.
Senator James advised that the bill states what the notice must include. He stated Mr. Guisti raised this as an underwriting concern. Before insurers can make a decision to put someone on a plan, which will change the risk, they need certain information. This would allow them to access records needed. Senator James read the portion of the bill specifically dealing with this concern. He advised that the proposed amendments would clear up Mr. Guisti's concerns.
Marie Soldo, Lobbyist, Sierra Health Services, advised she was not present for previous testimony. She stated she had reviewed the bill and thought amendments were to be submitted. She stated, with respect to Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs), if a parent has insurance in Las Vegas and the child lives in another part of the state, the HMO could not cover anything but emergency services for the child. She advised a residential requirement exists, stating the insured must live within 25 miles of where care is sought. She asked if all children being affected by S.B. 164 live within the state of Nevada.
Senator James stated the bill only applied to children entitled to insurance benefits. He supposed if they lived in another part of the state, they would not be eligible in any event. The existing language of the bill did not force coverage.
Ms. Soldo advised perhaps this should be stated in the bill.
Senator James advised this was in the bill, and read the portion which applied. He also repeated testimony from the previous hearing with regard to this issue.
Ms. Soldo asked if a demand could be made at any time to add the child to the insurance plan. She stated adverse risk was one concern of her organization.
Senator James asked what would happen in any other situation if someone had a health insurance plan through an employer which covered dependents. He asked if a new child of the employee would not be entitled to be covered on that plan.
Ms. Soldo replied the child could be added to the plan in a specified period of time, which she believed was 31 days.
Senator James read from the bill:
If enrollment is not open when the notice is received, the child must be enrolled as soon as the next period of enrollment is open.
He asked if that would not cover the situation.
Ms. Soldo stated this would not cover the situation. She did not understand the nature of Ms. Zunino's problem in total. She said it appeared the Child Support Enforcement Program feared the children would go onto the Medicaid roles.
Senator Adler advised Ms. Zunino's concern was that children who should be insured not go onto the Medicaid roles.
Ms. Soldo was not sure at what point coverage would be mandatory. She stated when a child is born or adopted, insurance companies add them within 31 days if they are entitled to coverage. This is determined by the certificate of coverage. She advised new dependents are not added at any other time.
Senator Adler believed there was a yearly enrollment at which time dependents could be added.
Ms. Soldo stated the child would not be eligible until the following annual enrollment. She advised she was raising these points because of her organization's concern of having children from out of the area who would not be eligible for coverage under an HMO.
Senator James believed, pursuant to the bill's language, someone outside the service area would be entitled to whatever coverage to which they would otherwise be entitled. He stated the bill does not seek to change the contract between the employer and the health insurance provider. He believed if a time limitation to add dependents existed, and the time had passed, that would operate to exclude the child. He was not sure the bill could be further changed to better address Ms. Soldo's concerns. He stated he would be happy to hear any suggestions she might propose.
Ms. Soldo stated she understood amendments would be submitted at this hearing, and that she could look at those amendments.
Senator James reiterated, the committee had received the amendments, written pursuant to insurers' requests.
Ms. Soldo advised she had not seen the amendments, and had not had the chance to review them.
Senator James advised S.B. 164 had been heard, and was held from action, to be decided in this work session for the reasons previously enumerated. He further advised no one came forward with additional comments, and therefore, he wished to move the bill out of committee. He advised he would hold the bill until the end of the hearing, to allow Ms. Soldo to review the amendments. Senator James closed the hearing on S.B. 164.
The hearing was opened on Senate Bill (S.B.) 243.
SENATE BILL 243: Makes various changes relating to gaming policy committee. (BDR 41-321)
Senator James believed some constitutional problems possibly existed in S.B. 243, with respect to subsection 7. He read this subsection and asked for comments from the committee.
Senator Titus advised she had decided, after hearing the testimony, to suggest S.B. 243 be amended. She suggested rather than making the gaming policy committee a mandatory committee which has to meet, make recommendations to the legislature and have the ability to negotiate, that it be left as an advisory committee. However, she suggested the new structure be added, so if the Governor ever chose to call the committee, the representation of the committee would be there. She suggested leaving page 1 as it is, and changing page 2, section 1, old subsection 6, in the following way:
(1) Remove the brackets from around "may from time to time" and delete the italics "shall at least quarterly".
(2) On lines 6 through 9, delete all language in italics.
(3) On lines 15 through 18, delete new subsection 7.
Senator Titus advised this would result in saying the gaming policy committee, maintained as an advisory committee, would not get involved in the negotiation of contracts, but would be a more representative body, should it ever be called by the Governor.
Senator Adler concurred with Senator Titus' suggestions. He advised when the interim study committee reviewed this proposal, they did not have any of the objections heard in the Senate Committee on Judiciary. The interim committee felt it was a good idea to restructure the gaming policy committee. He stated the last section with respect to participation in negotiations of indian tribal contracts was thought to be a key provision. The committee felt there needed to be some authority in law as to who signed the contracts, and this was ambiguous in the current statutes.
Senator Titus advised she had spoken with William Bible, Chairman, State of Nevada, Gaming Control Board. Mr. Bible stated language was needed to determine who would negotiate contracts. Senator Titus asked Dennis Neilander, Senior Research Analyst, to advise the committee as to who negotiated the last compact.
Mr. Neilander responded that the Gaming Control Board has a legal opinion which indicates they have the authority to negotiate intergovernmental contracts.
Senator Adler agreed clarification was needed to establish if the agency responsible would be the gaming control board or the gaming policy committee. He stated otherwise, the Governor would need to negotiate the contract with the tribe.
Mr. Neilander believed the opinion of the control board states the Governor may delegate his authority to any agency to do the negotiations.
Senator James stated S.B. 243 would be held for a regular hearing to consider making the changes mentioned. He closed the hearing on S.B. 243.
Senator James read a notice he had just received:
You are hereby notified that S.B. 78 now under consideration by your committee is in conflict with another bill which has been passed out.
Senator James stated possibly the amendments under consideration will avoid the conflict mentioned in the communique.
Senator James opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 279.
SENATE BILL 279: Provides civil lien for restitution unpaid by criminal defendant. (BDR 14-703)
Senator James briefly explained the bill, and stated there was no opposition. The bill was held for work session to determine why payments of restitution terminate, unless paid. He asked Mr. Neilander to explain the statute's provision regarding restitution centers.
Mr. Neilander advised the operative chapter in NRS consists of six sections, initially enacted in 1981. The thrust of the sections was to set up two restitution centers, one in Las Vegas and one in Reno. He advised offenders are housed at the centers at night and volunteer to work there during the day. Wages are used to pay restitution and the offenders' housing costs. He advised the termination provisions in section 2 of S.B. 279 apply only when an offender has been put in a restitution center.
He stated that at line 7, the suggested language " . . .through the department . . ." clarifies that those restitution payments are ones being made through the department, pursuant to a restitution contract allowing the offender to be in the center. He stated section 1 creates an additional remedy for restitution. He advised, at present, when an offender is released from prison, the restitution order is still in effect, but no remedy exists other than obtaining a judgment. The suggested language adds restitution to the existing section which allows administrative assessments and repayment of expenses to act as a civil lien.
SENATOR ADLER MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 279.
SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator James opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 291.
SENATE BILL 291: Makes various changes to provisions governing victims of crime. (BDR 16-518)
Senator James advised S.B. 291 is the "son of Sam" bill, to which amendments had been suggested.
Mr. Neilander explained the proposed amendments to S.B. 291. He stated the "son of Sam" legislation in New York had been stricken down by the United States Supreme Court (U.S. Supreme Court). He said S.B. 291 was originally modeled after the New York law, and on the last page, repeals the existing provisions. He stated the committee's major concern was at line 13 of the bill, stating " . . .depiction, portrayal or re-enactment of the felony . . ." Mr. Neilander advised the U.S. Supreme Court ruled a repayment program cannot be based on notoriety. Therefore, the language referred to is meant to tighten up that provision. Another concern of the committee was that the bill would not cover situations where an offender goes, for example, on a talk show and refers to the crime, but also discusses other things. After reviewing the bill draft and the case leading to its suggestion, Mr. Neilander believed the following amendment could be made: before the word "depiction", add the word "narrative." He stated this would broaden the language, but still would not cover situations where, for example, the offender does a talk show but does not speak of the crime.
Senator James did not believe there was a constitutional question. He stated the problem with the old law was that it was a confiscation and prior restraint on freedom of speech. He believed S.B. 291 only provides an extended statute of limitations, and covers the way an offender realizes money from the crime.
Mr. Neilander agreed, but added the activity of the offender must be tied directly to the felony.
Senator James asked why the language must be limited to narrative. He suggested amending the bill to state the statute of limitations begins to run with the occurrence of any activity to profit from the crime.
Mr. Neilander believed including narrative would cover the situation. He had suggested the term "discussion," which would cover anything. The bill drafter was not comfortable with that, as it was over-broad.
Senator James reiterated it was simply a statute of limitations, and no restraint on freedom of speech was proposed.
Mr. Neilander advised the second concern of the committee related to line 24, regarding who would be included as a victim. He advised that, within this provision, it was suggested family members should be included. He stated the definition of "victim" contained in NRS Chapter 213 would change the language at the end of line 24 to read as follows:
The victim is any person against whom a crime has been committed who has been injured or killed as a direct result of the commission of the crime, or the surviving spouse, parents or children of such person.
He stated this would cover the situation where the victim has died, and other people affected by the crime would be considered as victims. He advised an alternative approach would be to add "any relative" and define "relative." He advised the definition of "relative" in NRS Chapter 213. He believed the problem with this approach is, if the victim is still alive, there could be spouses, children and so forth, competing with the victim, for money under this section.
Senator Adler believed if the term "relative" was used, a clause should be added saying, "If the victim does not survive past 90 days, the relatives shall stand in their stead."
Senator James believed Mr. Neilander's first suggestion was sufficient, and the committee agreed. He was concerned regarding the other portion of the bill, because it deals with a statute of limitations. He believed this leaves the law open for someone to sue, because it is being extended based upon the type of proceeds to which the person is legally entitled. He gave an example involving a past contract.
Mr. Neilander advised the broadest term would be "any material which relates to the felony."
Senator James suggested saying ". . .material that is based upon or substantially related to the felony which was perpetrated against the victim." He confirmed the committee members agreed with this language. Senator James asked for a motion to incorporate both amendments and do pass S.B. 291.
SENATOR ADLER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 291.
SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator James opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 294.
SENATE BILL 294: Authorizes board of county commissioners or governing body of incorporated city to seek reimbursement for expenses incurred for supporting and maintaining prisoners in county or city jail or detention facility. (BDR 16-714)
Mr. Neilander explained the amendment which had been drafted for S.B. 294, and the reasons therefore. The amendment is attached as Exhibit G. He advised the only outstanding question regarding the amendment to page 2, was whether the support should be enumerated as dependent child support or simply support of dependents. He noted that the way it now reads indicates an existing obligation of child support, but does not address the spouse.
Senator Adler suggested it should be only child support.
Senator James stated that the amendment addressed his concerns raised in the hearing of S.B. 294. He confirmed no other committee member had concerns regarding the amendment.
SENATOR ADLER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 294.
SENATOR SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator James opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 59.
ASSEMBLY BILL 59: Revises definition of "robbery" to include theft in which force or fear is used as means of escape. (BDR 15-595)
Senator James briefly explained the bill. He advised an amendment had been provided by Ben Graham, Lobbyist, Nevada District Attorney's Association. The proposed amendment is attached as Exhibit H. Senator James advised this amendment addressed the concerns the committee expressed in the hearing. He confirmed no other member of the committee had objection to the amendment.
SENATOR SMITH MOVED TO AMEND THE FIRST REPRINT AND DO PASS A.B. 59.
SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator James opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 68.
ASSEMBLY BILL 68: Extends time in which action for damages for injury arising from sexual abuse of minor may be commenced. (BDR 2-827)
Senator James briefly explained the bill. He advised a question was raised in committee regarding the length of the statute of limitations. He stated that currently, the statute of limitations does not start running until the person reaches the age of 18, and not even then unless the person discovers he or she possesses emotional trauma resulting from sexual abuse. He advised the person then has 3 years to file the action. The proposal of A.B. 68 is to extend the statute of limitations to 10 years. The committee discussed whether this was too long.
Mr. Neilander briefly explained the legislative history of the statute. He advised the discovery rule was added in 1991. The initial bill draft for A.B. 68 had a 2-year limit after discovery. He stated the 2 years was chosen because that statute of limitations exists for other physical injuries. He advised a few assemblymen were concerned about 2 years, and they therefore suggested 3 years based on a Maine statute that at the time had a 3 year statute of limitations.
Senator Adler advised he was sympathetic to victims of this nature. He added, however, one reason for a statute of limitations was to allow people to defend themselves in an action. He felt gathering evidence many years after the act would be very difficult.
Senator James agreed 10 years may be too long. He wondered whether or not discovery should be redefined in this context, in order to determine whether someone had come to grips with the events enough to file an action. He had not been approached with any changes along those lines. He advised this issue involved the same kind of discovery rule existing for fraud, and believed the time period should be longer that the one for fraud. He believed the time should be extended to 5 years.
SENATOR SMITH MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 68.
SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator James opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 85.
ASSEMBLY BILL 85: Allows declaration made under penalty of perjury by person who withdraws sample of blood from another for analysis to be admitted in criminal or administrative proceeding to prove certain facts. (BDR 4-437)
Senator James advised this bill was held only because the Senate Committee on Judiciary had requested a bill draft to amend the Nevada statutes to comport with federal law regarding declarations under penalty of perjury.
SENATOR ADLER MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 85.
SENATOR MCGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR SMITH VOTED NO.)
* * * * *
Senator James opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 174.
ASSEMBLY BILL 174: Limits right of natural father to custody of or visitation with child conceived as result of sexual assault. (BDR 11-174)
Senator James briefly explained the bill. He advised there was no opposition to the bill.
SENATOR SMITH MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 174.
SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator James opened the hearing on Assembly Joint Resolution (A.J.R.) 22 of the Sixty-sixth Session.
ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION
22 of the
SIXTY-SIXTH SESSION: Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to allow increase in salary of justice of supreme court and district judge during term. (BDR C-1931)
Senator James briefly explained the resolution and advised there was no opposition.
SENATOR SMITH MOVED TO DO PASS A.J.R. 22 OF THE SIXTY-SIXTH SESSION.
SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator James re-opened the hearing on S.B. 164.
Kay Zunino advised the result of her discussion with Ms. Soldo and other lobbyists. She stated Ms. Soldo and others believed they had not been given an opportunity to look at the amendments nor to review the bill, and to offer input. Ms. Zunino said the others had to work with her in an effort in insure the employer or insurance agencies would not be liable for costs of insurance.
Senator Adler advised he did not see a problem with this in S.B. 164.
Senator James advised he would reschedule the hearing on the bill to allow Ms. Soldo's concerns to be addressed. He reiterated the times this bill had been scheduled for hearing and again explained why it had been held. He further advised he would make an exception in this case and again schedule the bill for the next work session. He requested that, in the future, anyone wishing to address a concern on a bill do so at the scheduled hearings, or if that is not possible, to make arrangements with the committee.
Ms. Zunino advised the committee that S.B. 164 is very important to her department, and if she can work out any minor problems without changing the substance of the bill, she will happy to do so.
Senator James closed the hearing on S.B. 164.
Senator James stated the committee had a bill draft request (BDR).
BDR 16-802: Creates a lien upon earnings and property of offender for costs of incarceration.
SENATOR SMITH MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 16-802.
SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator James confirmed there was no further business to come before the committee, and adjourned the meeting at 3:10 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Sherry Nesbitt,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Mark A. James, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Judiciary
March 31, 1993
Page 1